Brahman and Reincarnation

[Avi1001]

Very cool post, Jaskaran ! Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Before I respond to the content, I will just say, the whole post blew my mind. I am partially color blind so the orange font really jammed my neuron signals. Also, as punkd mentioned in an earlier post, the style of capitalizing in mid-sentence is very unique for us, but I am loving it, so no worries . By the way, is the mid-word capitalization used to give stress for the sounds of the words ?

I am sure you are right, these European academics have no idea what is going on... but neither do I , so I have to start somewhere, right ?

I like your idea of not giving in to cowardice, just to protect your body. This is a very non-material approach.

So you are against murdering anyone ? I like that, very peaceful ! I really like the fact that so many Hindu's are vegetarian.

The issue with disrobing must be a very provoking one in this story. In some of our faith texts we describe tearing clothes, but this seems more extreme.

I am really enjoying the idea of dharma (to uphold righteousness). Isn't this also a Buddhist notion (excuse me if I am confused here). Righteousness is also an important notion in Judaism, it would be interesting to compare the meanings. But, I notice punkd posted in the Hinduism DIR, not in the Comparative sub-forum, so I won't discuss other religions here.

The notion of adharma (immorality) is also an interesting one, I look forward to learning more about that one.

And I like your conclusion, that Bhagavan will help you, even if no one else will.

Are any of the names you refer to deities ? I understand that in Hinduism there are many deities.

What are your thoughts on pantheism vs. panentheism ? And what about your thoughts about monism vs. duality ?

Sorry if my post is naive, I am just starting to learn about Hinduism.

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 ca lls 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 harass ed. 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.

 

[Avi1001]

Thank you for your summary of the Gita, punkd. I read it many years ago, when I was in college, like yourself, but recall little of it, so your summary is very helpful.

And many of the themes are familiar: spirituality, material desires, attachments, self-realization.

I also like the Yogananda quote you posted. What do you make of the Renunciation part ? Again, the material desires / attachment re-emerges.

On a little more serious note, punkd, I know a lot of the classical faith literature emphasizes a very serious lifestyle, even an ascetic lifestyle, and this all good and fair. But I personally think one needs a balance in life. Especially when you are young, so I encourage you not to take it all too seriously, you know you have to enjoy your life too .

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:



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.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Certainly, giving into cowardice .. is capable of or willing to doing so.

Draupadi had no option, Yudhishthira had lost her to Duryodhana in the game. Lord Krishna was her sole succor, if I am correct.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

What Malinar writes is a story from Rajasthan, the land of Rajputs (warriors). In the story, in the middle of a war, a warrior returns to his newly-wed wife. The wife orders her servant to cut off her head and take it in a platter to the husband, because it was thought about her which made the husband come back without victory or martyrdom. No third option was recognized.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know a lot of the classical faith literature emphasizes a very serious lifestyle, even an ascetic lifestyle, and this all good and fair. But I personally think one needs a balance in life. Especially when you are young, so I encourage you not to take it all too seriously, you know you have to enjoy your life too .

It is not like that Avi. There are various stages of life. In the Brahmacharya Āshram, the first stage, when you learn and prepare yourself for life to come without wasting it, a little fun is not contraindicated. Children and young men will have their capers. In the next stage, Grihastha Āshram, when one marries, takes up a job and responsibility of the family, sex is not contraindicated. In the third stage, Vānaprastha Āshram, one is not required to cut off from the family and fun, though pursue spirituality. You can have fun with your children and grandchildren. You can advice your sons and daughters since you have more experience. Ascetic life or something similar to it comes only after this. So, all things in their own time.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I am partially color blind so the orange font really jammed my neuron signals.

I'll try to keep my posts in regular black font, then. Sorry about that...

Also, as punkd mentioned in an earlier post, the style of capitalizing in mid-sentence is very unique for us, but I am loving it, so no worries . By the way, is the mid-word capitalization used to give stress for the sounds of the words ?

It's actually used to distinguish sounds that are similar, but not exactly the same. devanAgarI (the script used most often since the 12th century AD for transcribing saMskR^itam, the liturgical language of Hinduism, and also used for hindI, marAThi, nepAlI, etc.) has sounds like न and ण which sound similar to the Roman (and English) letter "n," but are not exactly the same as one another, hence I distinguish them with a lower case n for न and an upper case N for ण and so forth for other letters. Even among Indian scripts, there are not always complete equivalents. For example the tamil letter izh (ழ&#3021 doesn't have a direct equivalent in devanAgarI and the devanAgarI letter भ (bha) and प (pa) are denoted by a single letter pa (&#2986 when transliterating.

I am sure you are right, these European academics have no idea what is going on... but neither do I , so I have to start somewhere, right ?

Well, yeah. I just dislike it in that on one hand, feminist Indologists will try to make it seem as if Ancient India was more patriarchal than other Ancient societies like Greece, China, Babylonia, Egypt, etc. citing circumstances such as sItA's agniparIkShA, which may or may not be mythological (see here, here, here, and here) yet at the same time there are others that make it seem as if Ancient Indian women are very unforgiving, callous, etc. by citing examples such as draupadI. It honestly makes absolutely no sense, clearly personalities differ. Some women back then were more willing to put up with abuse whereas others would lash out when upset. Yet in their urge to compartamentalize ancient societies, Indological scholars make generalizations, many of which lead to contradictory conclusions.

I like your idea of not giving in to cowardice, just to protect your body. This is a very non-material approach.

From an idealistic standpoint, I would say that leaving the battlefield due to fear of dying is a poor decision, yet if I were actually in that position, I might indeed think of doing so, so I can somewhat empathize if that was the reason arjuna did not want to fight, although the text seems to say that it was mainly because of fighting others.

So you are against murdering anyone ? I like that, very peaceful ! I really like the fact that so many Hindu's are vegetarian.

Actually, among "dharmic" religions, most Hindus (around 50-65%) and Buddhists (around 75-90%) are not vegetarian, although Jaina-s are by and large (98-99%) vegetarian acc. to the article "personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare." I'm vegetarian, but my elder brother eats meat and I'm certainly not going to go force him not to do so.

The issue with disrobing must be a very provoking one in this story. In some of our faith texts we describe tearing clothes, but this seems more extreme. I am really enjoying the idea of dharma (to uphold righteousness). Isn't this also a Buddhist notion (excuse me if I am confused here). Righteousness is also an important notion in Judaism, it would be interesting to compare the meanings. But, I notice punkd posted in the Hinduism DIR, not in the Comparative sub-forum, so I won't discuss other religions here.

Yes, dharma (dhamma in pALI) is also a term used by buddhists, but I think therein it refers to following the teachings of the buddha (the triratna of the buddhists I think is buddham sharaNam gachchhami [I seek refuge in the buddha], dharmam sharaNam gachchhami [I seek refuge in the dharma], and sangham sharaNam gachchhami [I seek refuge in the community/sangha] or whatever the pALI equivalent of that is). In hinduism, it has a similar meaning, in that it refers to following the teachings of the relgion, although the buddhist sUtram-s are in many ways different philosophically than our shAstra-s. Most strict sthaviravAda bauddha-s don't believe in a creator god (see the brahmajAla suttam from the tipiTaka), whereas most Hindu vedAntI-s do indeed believe in a supreme deity, buddha taught against the existence of the self/soul (anatta) whereas the upaniShad-s teach that the soul exists and is immortal, etc. Some principles, such as ahiMsa are present in both Buddhism and modern Hinduism (although strictly speaking, ahiMsa was originally a shramaNa ideal not patently present in early Vedic "Hinduism," wherein animal sacrifice occasionally took place)

The notion of adharma (immorality) is also an interesting one, I look forward to learning more about that one.

Here are some examples then, :
Yahoo!
Religious Statues Vandalized At 2 Churches In Vineland « CBS Philly
Mass. Boy Faces 2nd Rape Charge in Teacher Killing - ABC News

And I like your conclusion, that Bhagavan will help you, even if no one else will.

Are any of the names you refer to deities ? I understand that in Hinduism there are many deities.


Sorry if my post is naive, I am just starting to learn about Hinduism.

There are so many it would take a while to name them all. There's viShNu (along with the dashAvatAra-s like kR^iShNa, rAma, etc. and other forms such as veNkaTeshvara, jagannAth, and mohinI), there's shiva/rudra (along with his five forms, sadyojata, vAmadeva, IshAna, tatpuruSha, and aghora as well as other appearances like kAlabhairava, ardhanArIshvara, naTarAja[r/n], etc.) there's lakShmi (of which there are eight forms), there's sarasvatI (of which there are three forms), durgA/kAlI/pArvati (with forms like lalita tripurAsundari, kAmAkShi, among others), the dashamahAvidyA (tArA, bhuvaneshvari, dhumAvati, bagalmukhi, etc.), gaNesha, hanumAn, murugA/kArtikeya, some no-longer-worshipped-very-often (NLWVO, an acronym I just made up) vedic deities like indra, agni, et al. If I tried to name every one, it would probably be a couple hundred if not over a thousand. I'm personally a viShNu/kR^iShNa bhakta, and hence view viShNu and his forms as supreme and all other deities and manifestations and/or expansions of viShNu. Therefore, when I use the term bhagavAn, I generally mean viShNu or kR^iShNa. In that sense, I'm neither strictly polytheistic nor monotheistic, but follow a blend of panentheism and henotheism. Does that make sense?

Draupadi had no option, Yudhishthira had lost her to Duryodhana in the game. Lord Krishna was her sole succor, if I am correct.

Exactly, that's what I meant when I said "The overall meaning I took from it was that bhagavAn can help you even if no one else is willing to or capable of doing so."

 

[Avi1001]

Oh, sorry Aupmanyav, I was not referring to Hinduism only, I was referring more broadly to classical religions, which include Buddhism and Judaism, as well, and punkd and I are interested in those too. My point was that sometimes followers of all three of these religions / philosophies take life very seriously, and I think it is good to remind ourselves, once in a while, of the importance of balance in our lives, especially for young people.

Having said that, I do acknowledge that the various stages of the life-cycle do consider that as well. Thanks for pointing that out .

It is not like that Avi. There are various stages of life. In the Brahmacharya Āshram, the first stage, when you learn and prepare yourself for life to come without wasting it, a little fun is not contraindicated. Children and young men will have their capers. In the next stage, Grihastha Āshram, when one marries, takes up a job and responsibility of the family, sex is not contraindicated. In the third stage, Vānaprastha Āshram, one is not required to cut off from the family and fun, though pursue spirituality. You can have fun with your children and grandchildren. You can advice your sons and daughters since you have more experience. Ascetic life or something similar to it comes only after this. So, all things in their own time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Some women back then were more willing to put up with abuse whereas others would lash out when upset.

Kaikeyi, for example; the loving step-mother of Lord Rama, who sent Rama on a 14 year exile. She held the wheel of Dasaratha's chariot during the battle between Gods and Demons by holding it by hand/inserting her finger (whatever) when the axle broke down. Strong, fearless.

 

[DanielR]

I love Advaita and Hinduism, but I have a very hard time accepting reincarnation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Who asks you to accept reincarnation? I term myself as an advaitist. I do not believe in reincarnation. After death, my body will be cremated. There would majorly be three products. Water vapor, carbon-di-oxide, and lime. Lime and bones (whatever is left) would go to River Ganges on immersion of my ashes and form sediments. The other two will go into atmosphere and from there to a million living and non-living objects. So, what constitutes me (Brahman) will continue its play. Should I take that as reincarnation?

 

[Maya3]

Who asks you to accept reincarnation? I term myself as an advaitist. I do not believe in reincarnation. After death, my body will be cremated. There would majorly be three products. Water vapor, carbon-di-oxide, and lime. Lime and bones (whatever is left) would go to River Ganges on immersion of my ashes and form sediments. The other two will go into atmosphere and from there to a million living and non-living objects. So, what constitutes me (Brahman) will continue its play. Should I take that as reincarnation?

I think that is one form of reincarnation. Certainly reincarnation of matter.

Maya

 

[DanielR]

Who asks you to accept reincarnation? I term myself as an advaitist. I do not believe in reincarnation. After death, my body will be cremated. There would majorly be three products. Water vapor, carbon-di-oxide, and lime. Lime and bones (whatever is left) would go to River Ganges on immersion of my ashes and form sediments. The other two will go into atmosphere and from there to a million living and non-living objects. So, what constitutes me (Brahman) will continue its play. Should I take that as reincarnation?

That's how I see it as well actually!

That's more in line with NeoAdvaita someone told me, but I don't subscribe to NeoAdvaita.

 

[Avi1001]

q

From an idealistic standpoint, I would say that leaving the battlefield due to fear of dying is a poor decision, yet if I were actually in that position, I might indeed think of doing so, so I can somewhat empathize if that was the reason arjuna did not want to fight, although the text seems to say that it was mainly because of fighting others.

Thanks, Jaskaran, for sharing your thoughts. I agree with your Ideas about leaving a battlefield, further, if we lean toward a pacifist approach it might be a good idea from that perspective as well. I am also very much a fan of Ghandi.

Actually, among "dharmic" religions, most Hindus (around 50-65%) and Buddhists (around 75-90%) are not vegetarian, although Jaina-s are by and large (98-99%) vegetarian acc. to the article "personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare." I'm vegetarian, but my elder brother eats meat and I'm certainly not going to go force him not to do so.

Yes, dharma (dhamma in pALI) is also a term used by buddhists, but I think therein it refers to following the teachings of the buddha (the triratna of the buddhists I think is buddham sharaNam gachchhami [I seek refuge in the buddha], dharmam sharaNam gachchhami [I seek refuge in the dharma], and sangham sharaNam gachchhami [I seek refuge in the community/sangha] or whatever the pALI equivalent of that is). In hinduism, it has a similar meaning, in that it refers to following the teachings of the relgion, although the buddhist stram-s are in many ways different philosophically than our shAstra-s. Most strict sthaviravAda bauddha-s don't believe in a creator god (see the brahmajAla suttam from the tipiTaka), whereas most Hindu vedAntI-s do indeed believe in a supreme deity, buddha taught against the existence of the self/soul (anatta) whereas the upaniShad-s teach that the soul exists and is immortal, etc. Some principles, such as ahiMsa are present in both Buddhism and modern Hinduism (although strictly speaking, ahiMsa was originally a shramaNa ideal not patently present in early Vedic "Hinduism," wherein animal sacrifice occasionally took place)

Another reason I like the vegetarian lifestyle is it has a lower cholesterol, so it is healthier.

I think the inter-relationships between Hinduism and Buddhism is very interesting. My current thinking is that the most important issues that religion can deal with are improving the relations between man/woman and his/her fellow man/woman and between man/woman and his/her environment. If religion can do that it has great value.

On the other hand, I think religion plays little role in understanding man/woman's and the universes's creation. This is the role of scientists.

There are so many it would take a while to name them all. There's viShNu (along with the dashAvatAra-s like kR^iShNa, rAma, etc. and other forms such as veNkaTeshvara, jagannAth, and mohinI), there's shiva/rudra (along with his five forms, sadyojata, vAmadeva, IshAna, tatpuruSha, and aghora as well as other appearances like kAlabhairava, ardhanArIshvara, naTarAja[r/n], etc.) there's lakShmi (of which there are eight forms), there's sarasvatI (of which there are three forms), durgA/kAlI/pArvati (with forms like lalita tripurAsundari, kAmAkShi, among others), the dashamahAvidyA (tArA, bhuvaneshvari, dhumAvati, bagalmukhi, etc.), gaNesha, hanumAn, murugA/kArtikeya, some no-longer-worshipped-very-often (NLWVO, an acronym I just made up) vedic deities like indra, agni, et al. If I tried to name every one, it would probably be a couple hundred if not over a thousand. I'm personally a viShNu/kR^iShNa bhakta, and hence view viShNu and his forms as supreme and all other deities and manifestations and/or expansions of viShNu. Therefore, when I use the term bhagavAn, I generally mean viShNu or kR^iShNa. In that sense, I'm neither strictly polytheistic nor monotheistic, but follow a blend of panentheism and henotheism. Does that make sense?

Very interesting. This is perhaps the most significant obstacle that punkd and I will face in trying to reconcile Hinduism with our Jewish tradition. As you know, in Judaism, G-d is considered to be the "one and only G-d". So how can this be made consistent with a multitude of G-d's ? I will be interested to hear punkd's views on this matter.

 

[punkdbass]

Thank you for your summary of the Gita, punkd. I read it many years ago, when I was in college, like yourself, but recall little of it, so your summary is very helpful.

And many of the themes are familiar: spirituality, material desires, attachments, self-realization.

I also like the Yogananda quote you posted. What do you make of the Renunciation part ? Again, the material desires / attachment re-emerges.

On a little more serious note, punkd, I know a lot of the classical faith literature emphasizes a very serious lifestyle, even an ascetic lifestyle, and this all good and fair. But I personally think one needs a balance in life. Especially when you are young, so I encourage you not to take it all too seriously, you know you have to enjoy your life too .

As far as Renunciation goes, westerners usually have a really hard time understanding this part. Alright I guess there are 2 types of renunciation - 1) the literal practice of deliberately renouncing many things.. 2) the more general meaning that the idea of Renunciation points too, and that is of overcoming material desires and attachments. Giving up material desires and attachments does not mean I cannot enjoy things or have preferences, of course I can do both!! but the key difference is that I am no longer identified (attached) with my preferences, it will make absolutely no difference to me whether or not I get what I prefer.. (I haven't attained this state, just giving an explanation here). But still this, confuses most people, they think such an idea of "renunciation" (i.e. giving up being identified or attached to material things/habits) means they will sort of be "withdrawing" from life, into a state of seclusion and monotony.. but this simply is not the case! The best way I can try to clear such confusion is with a quote from Lama Surya Das:

Those who see worldly life as an obstacle to dharma see no dharma in everyday actions; they have not yet discovered that there are no everyday actions outside of dharma.

I.e. one does not need to withdraw from worldly life, rather literally ANY action of worldy life has the innate potential to be imbued with mindfulness and non-attachment/non-identification with said action.

And thanks for the reminder.. balance in life, the middle path, is definitely key and I realize sometimes I overdo the whole philosophy/thinking about life thing. But I have a lot of fun as well despite being on the RF quite a bit lately, I am not the isolated, renunciating internet hermit one might imagine hahah

One last note, in a Torah Study with my Rabbi from back home, she once gave a really interesting discourse on a Jewish view of Renunciation which really is similar to what I'm describing above. The discourse started on a verse relating to how a Nazarite (a Jew who decides to become a renouncent of several different things for a certain length of time, I forget what) has to give a proscribed sacrifice for sin upon finishing his term as a Nazarite. So she brought up the question of, what sin.. specifically associated with being a Nazarite has the man committed? Certainly this is open to interpretation, but she took it to mean that everything God created was good and to deliberately abstain from his good creation is unnecessary, rather any object or action has the potential to be imbued with mindfulness.. or "holiness" from the Jewish perspective. The point being that one does not need to withdraw from life on the path towards holiness, enlightenment, union with God, etc.

 

[DanielR]

I think that is one form of reincarnation. Certainly reincarnation of matter.

Maya

yes, what about consciousness !?

 

[Maya3]

yes, what about consciousness !?

I think that the part that cannot let go of matter reincarnates also, the part of you that is attached to everything in our life, all the samskaras that we build in this life time and in the previous ones.

I believe that there is something that is beyond the physical body that reincarnates and that exist independent of the body.

Maya

 

[Avi1001]

Hey punkd, good explanation of the concept of renunciation, and I agree one can reduce their dependence on material possessions and still live a very satisfying life.

The notion of attachment seems to me to also have a psychological perspective, for example, how do we relate to others ? But it seems like the same ideas apply, for example in the case of relationships, having a healthy way of interacting with others and not being too interdependent. Excessive dependence can prevent the individual from growth in their individual manner.

As far as Renunciation goes, westerners usually have a really hard time understanding this part. Alright I guess there are 2 types of renunciation - 1) the literal practice of deliberately renouncing many things.. 2) the more general meaning that the idea of Renunciation points too, and that is of overcoming material desires and attachments. Giving up material desires and attachments does not mean I cannot enjoy things or have preferences, of course I can do both!! but the key difference is that I am no longer identified (attached) with my preferences, it will make absolutely no difference to me whether or not I get what I prefer.. (I haven't attained this state, just giving an explanation here). But still this, confuses most people, they think such an idea of "renunciation" (i.e. giving up being identified or attached to material things/habits) means they will sort of be "withdrawing" from life, into a state of seclusion and monotony.. but this simply is not the case! The best way I can try to clear such confusion is with a quote from Lama Surya Das:



I.e. one does not need to withdraw from worldly life, rather literally ANY action of worldy life has the innate potential to be imbued with mindfulness and non-attachment/non-identification with said action.

And thanks for the reminder.. balance in life, the middle path, is definitely key and I realize sometimes I overdo the whole philosophy/thinking about life thing. But I have a lot of fun as well despite being on the RF quite a bit lately, I am not the isolated, renunciating internet hermit one might imagine hahah

One last note, in a Torah Study with my Rabbi from back home, she once gave a really interesting discourse on a Jewish view of Renunciation which really is similar to what I'm describing above. The discourse started on a verse relating to how a Nazarite (a Jew who decides to become a renouncent of several different things for a certain length of time, I forget what) has to give a proscribed sacrifice for sin upon finishing his term as a Nazarite. So she brought up the question of, what sin.. specifically associated with being a Nazarite has the man committed? Certainly this is open to interpretation, but she took it to mean that everything God created was good and to deliberately abstain from his good creation is unnecessary, rather any object or action has the potential to be imbued with mindfulness.. or "holiness" from the Jewish perspective. The point being that one does not need to withdraw from life on the path towards holiness, enlightenment, union with God, etc.

 

[George-ananda]

Who asks you to accept reincarnation? I term myself as an advaitist. I do not believe in reincarnation. After death, my body will be cremated. There would majorly be three products. Water vapor, carbon-di-oxide, and lime. Lime and bones (whatever is left) would go to River Ganges on immersion of my ashes and form sediments. The other two will go into atmosphere and from there to a million living and non-living objects. So, what constitutes me (Brahman) will continue its play. Should I take that as reincarnation?

What you described as happening to the physical is the obvious that no one on earth of any persuasion doesn't already know. To call that reincarnation is meaningless.

Reincarnation implies the belief that consciousness is more than physical plane activity. So the answer to your question is, 'No' what you describe is not reincarnation.

 

[George-ananda]

That's how I see it as well actually!

That's more in line with NeoAdvaita someone told me, but I don't subscribe to NeoAdvaita.

How does the way you see things differ from atheism?

 

[Valjean]

The idea of re-incarnation as a life-after-life, temporal progression of incarnations is clearly a culture-bound fantasy.

Reality is an illusion, a dream. Our ordinary perception of the world violates the laws of physics.
There is no time -- no past, present or future.
We dream various lives just as we may play various video games. Some set in the present, some in the past, some in the future. We can play any of these any time.
It's all maya. It's all lila.