I'm 27 and I don't want to be reincarnated

[ajay0]

Oh, Ian Stevenson again. Are the reports available in the pseudo-science section of Religious Forums?

Well, I thought this was the Dharmic forums of which reincarnation/rebirth was a part of, as taught by Krishna, Mahavira, Guru Nanak and Buddha ! Hope I am not mistaken.

If I am, do kindly guide me to the Dharmic forums where I can post this.

Thanks a lot for your generosity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are very much in a Dharmic Forum - but you are talking to an advaitist, one who is none other than Brhman. For him there is no birth, no death, and therefore no re-birth too. Were you born in 6th Century BC? Because by 500 BC, Sage Brihaspati said "Bhasmibhootasya Dehasya Punarāgamanam Kutah?" Buddha met one of the Charvaks - Ajita Kesakāmbali.
Ajita Kesakambali - Wikipedia

 

[ajay0]

You are very much in a Dharmic Forum - but you are talking to an advaitist, one who is none other than Brhman.

There is no advaitist over here. I have always stated that your views are pseudo-advaita, for which you have faced heavy criticism in this and other forums. You had even stated here that you needed a chain mail armour in an another Hindu forum (because of the criticism faced.)

I see you stopped posting over there after a few posts, and decided to abide here, where none knows much about Advaita, and you can go scot free with pseudoadvaitan views with none being the wiser.

For him there is no birth, no death, and therefore no re-birth too. Were you born in 6th Century BC? Because by 500 BC, Sage Brihaspati said "Bhasmibhootasya Dehasya Punarāgamanam Kutah?" Buddha met one of the Charvaks - Ajita Kesakāmbali.
Ajita Kesakambali - Wikipedia

Ajita Kesakambali and Brihaspait were charvak atheists, who refuted the vedas and relied only on the pramana of perception compared to buddhism which relied on (perception, inference) as valid means. Jainism holds three (perception, inference and testimony), while Mimamsa and Advaita Vedanta schools of Hinduism hold all six pramanas as useful and reliable means to knowledge. ( perception/pratyakṣa, inference /anumāna, comparison and analogy (upamana), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi) and word, testimony of past or present reliable experts ).

Also the charvaks rejected the teaching of reincarnation as taught by Krishna, Mahavira and Guru Nanak, and also the teaching of rebirth by Buddha.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I see you stopped posting over there after a few posts, ..

Ajita Kesakambali and Brihaspait were charvak atheists, who refuted the vedas and relied only on the pramana of perception compared to buddhism which relied on (perception, inference) as valid means. Jainism holds three (perception, inference and testimony), while Mimamsa and Advaita Vedanta schools of Hinduism hold all six pramanas as useful and reliable means to knowledge. ( perception/pratyakṣa, inference /anumāna, comparison and analogy (upamana), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi) and word, testimony of past or present reliable experts ).

Also the charvaks rejected the teaching of reincarnation as taught by Krishna, Mahavira and Guru Nanak, and also the teaching of rebirth by Buddha.

I do not know which forum are you referring to. I have never backed out of a debate. If I am not posting at any forum it could be because of less traffic there. I am ready for engagement at any time.

Yes, Brihaspati and Kesakambali were charvaks, but that does not make there views any less important. I too have charted my own way and do not go by scriptures and sages. I think that is perfectly OK in Hinduism. Whatever my views (mata) are,they belong to me only. And yes, I am very impressed by Buddhism and consider Buddha as one of my gurus (Sankara being another), though I differ with him too, and I am not a Buddhist.

I am more of a Vaisheshika as regards 'pramanas'. Pratyaksha and anumana with its limitations. Shabda only if it passes scrutiny. I too reject reincarnation, Buddha's reincarnation is different. What others say and why they say it (there could be special reasons for it, sometimes it may just be for the consumption of ignorant people or for social welfare), is unimportant for me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There are some people who remember. There are cases of children and people all over the world remembering their past lives, even in western and muslim countries, which shows that it is not emerging in the background of a conditioned beliefset.

http://www.jaicobooks.com/j/PDF/30 Most Convincing case.pdf

I have read many such . The above pdf was put by a rf member Venugopal in the Resources Forum.

While I admit to not reading the PDF in its entirely (I'll make an effort to do so when I have time), I've read such claims on occasion, and while I don't deny that something in consciousness is retained over incarnations, I don't believe anything biological or psychological is carried from one 'lifetime' to the next. As I see it, the aspects of memory on the left of this image leave us with brain death, but the aspects on the right (I don't like the terminology 'social and cultural studies;' ; I prefer the terms 'wisdom' or 'jnana,' but then again, I didn't create the image) are carried over incarnations on the path to liberation.

 

[ajay0]

I do not know which forum are you referring to. I have never backed out of a debate. If I am not posting at any forum it could be because of less traffic there. I am ready for engagement at any time.

I am talking of the Hindu Dharma Forums where you were stated to be suffering from senility after expressing your personal ideas on Advaita in the introductory thread.

Yes, Brihaspati and Kesakambali were charvaks, but that does not make there views any less important. I too have charted my own way and do not go by scriptures and sages. I think that is perfectly OK in Hinduism. Whatever my views (mata) are,they belong to me only. And yes, I am very impressed by Buddhism and consider Buddha as one of my gurus (Sankara being another), though I differ with him too, and I am not a Buddhist.

I am more of a Vaisheshika as regards 'pramanas'. Pratyaksha and anumana with its limitations. Shabda only if it passes scrutiny. I too reject reincarnation, Buddha's reincarnation is different. What others say and why they say it (there could be special reasons for it, sometimes it may just be for the consumption of ignorant people or for social welfare), is unimportant for me.

But the vaisheshika philosophy also emphasizes scriptural authority, the soul and meditation for Self-realisation, which is taboo to you.

You are a charvak, and there it ends. I have no issues with Charvak philosophy, as long as Charvaks stay honest to their philosophy and do not try to appropriate other philosophies and proclaiming pseudo-advaitan views under the label of Advaita.

Also attacking other dharmic teachings is also recipe for conflict. If you have anything to say or discuss , put it in a charvak thread with a charvak pov. For debate go to the same faith debate forums. All this can ensure a healthy relationship between the charvaks and other dharmiks, free of conflict and strife.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I want to follow my dreams but I don't want to be reincarnated if I'm unsuccessful in this lifetime.

I don't want to go to school and college all over again

What to do?

In Buddhist, your actions determine how you will live the next life or rebirth. Although not reincarnation (no Moska and Brahma), if actions are a core tenent in Hinduism, maybe conforming your actions can give you an insight on your next incarnation. That, and every incarnation leads you closer to Brahma, right? If thats so for you, maybe focus on aligning your goals and actions with that more so than attached to things like careers that would not bring you enlightenment in buddhism and as some say here keep you craving for this world rather than union in the hope for a better "next."

 

[sayak83]

I want to follow my dreams but I don't want to be reincarnated if I'm unsuccessful in this lifetime.

I don't want to go to school and college all over again

What to do?

Get reincarnated as a cat in USA or a Cow in India. Easy life. No studies needed.

 

[ajay0]

While I admit to not reading the PDF in its entirely (I'll make an effort to do so when I have time), I've read such claims on occasion, and while I don't deny that something in consciousness is retained over incarnations, I don't believe anything biological or psychological is carried from one 'lifetime' to the next.

It is the psychological memories and tendencies that passes from lifetimes. There is nothing biological that is passed on. I would say the buddhist pov may be correct in this regard. These are wiped out by Awareness/mindfulness or spiritual practices leading to total dissolution of karma, and consequently Nirvana.

In the books of Dr. Brian Weiss and Dr. Michael Newton and others, you can see case studies of healing of a psychological and even physiological nature, taking place when past life traumas are remembered through hypnotic regression.

It shows the effect of past psychological memories on the present constitution and mindset of the individual.

A european lady suffering from poor muscle functioning in her jaw for a very long time, upon regressing saw herself to be a black slave in a past life having a permanent wound in his jaw caused by large shackles around his neck. The very regression and reliving of past life experience seems to have healed her jaw problem, and she did not face this issue later on.

Similarly , in Dr. Michael Newton's book 'Journey of Souls' , he has a patient suffering from chronic pain on his right side. Upon regressing, the patient relived his life as a soldier in the first world war, who was stabbed by a bayonet and killed. This personal revelation lead to the cessation of the patient's pain as well.

Journey of Souls

This shows that most diseases and physical issues we possess may have a psychosomatic origin, not necessarily from the present life.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh, Ian Stevenson again. Are the reports available in the pseudo-science section of Religious Forums?

There ought to be a pseudoscience section.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Get reincarnated as a cat in USA or a Cow in India. Easy life. No studies needed.

I want to be a seagull at McDonald's.

 

[ajay0]

I want to be reborn as myself again.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am talking of the Hindu Dharma Forums where you were stated to be suffering from senility after expressing your personal ideas on Advaita in the introductory thread.

But the vaisheshika philosophy also emphasizes scriptural authority, the soul and meditation for Self-realisation, which is taboo to you.

You are a charvak, and there it ends. I have no issues with Charvak philosophy, as long as Charvaks stay honest to their philosophy and do not try to appropriate other philosophies and proclaiming pseudo-advaitan views under the label of Advaita.

Also attacking other dharmic teachings is also recipe for conflict. If you have anything to say or discuss, put it in a charvak thread with a charvak pov. For debate go to the same faith debate forums. All this can ensure a healthy relationship between the charvaks and other dharmiks, free of conflict and strife.

Though I do not remember such an instance, it is quite possible that a fool may have said this about me in the initial stages. But I am sure that by my arguments, I must have silenced him. Why don't to give a clear reference to the forum? What I say cannot be understood by fools and ignorant people. It is like "Bhains ke age been bajana" (playing a flute before a buffalo). The animal would not understand it. To it, it would seem only a noise.

It is the later Vaisesika which recognizes 'shabda', not what was Kanada's. There is no reason in Vaisesika to accept something without sufficient proof.
"Of these Vaiśeṣika epistemology considered only pratyakṣa (perception) and anumāna (inference) as reliable means of valid knowledge."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika#Epistemology

I am not a charvak. Again your ignorance is showing.I believe in 'dharmacharan', accept the responsibilities of the society, I accept non-duality in toto. How would then I be a charvak? I do not accept the weak 'advaita' that many people offer which comes along with a God.

I am not attacking anyone. I am not accepting things which do not appear to me to be true. Don't try to brow-beat me. I am made of a sterner stuff. Does that mean that only the books that you value, the sages that you value and the views that you hold are 'dharmic'? In that case I would say that you are not a Hindu if you cannot accept views different from yours. That is a trait of monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam.

In a DIR in Religious forums, one has the right to express his mata (opinion) and not to abuse the mata (opinion) of another person. You are doing exactly that. You are infringing upon my rights. You are welcome to express your opinions, but do not try to own either the 'Dhahrmic Religions DIR' or the "Hinduism DIR". If you want a debate, I am ready to take up any challenge. Thanks.

 

[ajay0]

Though I do not remember such an instance, it is quite possible that a fool may have said this about me in the initial stages. But I am sure that by my arguments, I must have silenced him. Why don't to give a clear reference to the forum? What I say cannot be understood by fools and ignorant people. It is like "Bhains ke age been bajana" (playing a flute before a buffalo). The animal would not understand it. To it, it would seem only a noise.

The forum is Hindu Dharma Forums in the Introduction Section where you mentioned your pseudoadvaitan views.
The person who stated that you were suffering from senility is a highly respected senior scholar over there.

It is the later Vaisesika which recognizes 'shabda', not what was Kanada's. There is no reason in Vaisesika to accept something without sufficient proof.
"Of these Vaiśeṣika epistemology considered only pratyakṣa (perception) and anumāna (inference) as reliable means of valid knowledge."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika#Epistemology

Whatever it is, the teachings of soul and meditation is there in it, which you reject. Hence u r not a vaisesika , no matter how much you insist. Similarly with advaita.

I am not a charvak. Again your ignorance is showing.I believe in 'dharmacharan', accept the responsibilities of the society, I accept non-duality in toto. How would then I be a charvak? I do not accept the weak 'advaita' that many people offer which comes along with a God.

What's wrong with being a charvak !! Is it because it is not as stylish sounding as advaitan or vaisheshika usually mentioned. Quacks like to present themselves as qualifed doctors and even administer medicine illegally mainly for ego-gratification though they have no knowledge of the subject except for some home remedies and their own ideas of what constitutes medicine and healing. Many get arrested and these are mentioned in Indian newspapers a lot.

Your nonduality is just delusion and varies greatly from Advaitan teachings. Hence the criticism from all quarters.

I am not attacking anyone. I am not accepting things which do not appear to me to be true. Don't try to brow-beat me. I am made of a sterner stuff. Does that mean that only the books that you value, the sages that you value and the views that you hold are 'dharmic'? In that case I would say that you are not a Hindu if you cannot accept views different from yours. That is a trait of monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam.

Don't accept things which do not appear to be true. But there is no need to express it contemptuously, except in the same faith debate forums. Especially if it a fundamental teaching of the dharmic religions.If we can't express it in the hindu/dharmic dir, should we express it in the atheist or materialism forums or Christianity forums !

I am not attacking anyone. I am not accepting things which do not appear to me to be true. Don't try to brow-beat me. I am made of a sterner stuff. Does that mean that only the books that you value, the sages that you value and the views that you hold are 'dharmic'? In that case I would say that you are not a Hindu if you cannot accept views different from yours. That is a trait of monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam.

I think you are incorrigible due to delusion which is understandable, as delusion is tamasic and the usual qualities of tamas are associated with it like obstinacy as mentioned in the Gita.

The religious dir forums are for discussing the fundamental teachings of the associated religions with respect to the scriptures, sages and dharmic views. We can't do this in the atheist or materialistic or other religious forums. So kindly allow us to do this in the present forums. If you wish to dispute the fundamental teachings, do that in the same faith debate forums, which we will glady indulge.

In a DIR in Religious forums, one has the right to express his mata (opinion) and not to abuse the mata (opinion) of another person. You are doing exactly that. You are infringing upon my rights. You are welcome to express your opinions, but do not try to own either the 'Dhahrmic Religions DIR' or the "Hinduism DIR". If you want a debate, I am ready to take up any challenge. Thanks.

Opinions must not abuse the fundamental teachings of the religion dir. If you want to abuse fundamental teachings, do that in the same faith debate forums.

I love challenges , and gladly look forward to them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The forum is Hindu Dharma Forums in the Introduction Section where you mentioned your pseudoadvaitan views. The person who stated that you were suffering from senility is a highly respected senior scholar over there.

Ah, that was ages ago. Just as you do not like my views here, there must have been a similar person in that forum also who did not like my views. I cannot help that. My views do not go well with antediluvian thoughts, and retrograde unscientific people. So, it is natural that I must have become uninterested in that forum. Yes, that kind of person may be a respected senior scholar for some people, I would consider such a person as a fool.

Whatever it is, the teachings of soul and meditation is there in it, which you reject. Hence u r not a vaisesika , no matter how much you insist. Similarly with advaita.

To differ is not a crime in Hinduism and that does not take away my Hinduism. Surely, I do not subscribe to the Vaisesika philosophy, I am an 'advaitist'. Science has gone far ahead than what 'Vaisesika' people knew. Mind you, I do not blame them. On the contrary, I appreciate them. My 'pramana' system is based on Vaisesika. They were excellent for their time. If Sage Kanada was alive probably he would have appreciated my views. I have only, in a way, updated Vaisesika.

"The Vaiśeṣikas visualized the smallest composite thing as a “triad” (tryaṇuka) with three parts, each part with a “dyad” (dyaṇuka)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika#Overview

Now all atoms or sub-atomic particles have become 'energy'.

Your nonduality is just delusion and varies greatly from Advaitan teachings. Hence the criticism from all quarters.

Again, you are commenting on my views which you have no business to do. My views are my own, I am not suggesting that you follow my views, but you are telling me that my view are delusions. That may be your view, but it is not mine. If it varies from the what you think is the 'Advaitan' view, why should it bother me? Other than you, I do not find any one criticizing my views. Even people who criticized me at one time have come to terms with me.

Especially if it a fundamental teaching of the dharmic religions.

There is no fundamental teaching in Hinduism other than conduct according to one's 'dharma'. All the rest, the philosophies are optional. One can be an advaitist and be Hindu, one can be a dvaitist and a Hindu, one can follow Samkhya and be Hindu. I accept 'dharmacharan', and then I go my way as for beliefs. One can believe in multiplicity of Gods and one can believe in singularity of God. One can even believe in atheism and be a Hindu - Nireeshwar vada is not a new doctrine in Hinduism. It is as old as RigVeda - read 'Naadiya Sukta'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism. See https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...Philosophy/articleshow/690490.cms?referral=PM

How can you put shackles on what I want to believe? Hinduism does not give you that right. Your post only show your own backwardness.

 

[ajay0]

Ah, that was ages ago.

That was just two years back.

Again, you are commenting on my views which you have no business to do. My views are my own, I am not suggesting that you follow my views, but you are telling me that my view are delusions. That may be your view, but it is not mine. If it varies from the what you think is the 'Advaitan' view, why should it bother me?

Scientists object to pseudoscience delivered by pseudoscientists posing under the label of science, and so do doctors object to quacks offering their services in the name of medicine based on vague speculation without prior training .Similarly advaitans will object to pseudo-advaitan views in the name of advaita.

A western tourist in India , took the services of an unqualified masseur, who branded himself falsely as an expert and certified masseur, and damaged his spinal cord in the process, which brought a bad name to the whole industry when it was reported in the newspapers. This is the reason why fraud and fraudulent views should be exposed before any innocent people get harmed in the process. This is the duty of any responsible citizen for creating a healthy and progressive society.

Advaita, properly understood, can bring tremondous good to a person just like Buddhism, through its tools of neti-neti and meditation. Denying this through erroneous interpretations can bring about more harm through delusion than good.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You and your advaitans do not have a copy-right on advaita. Your understanding of advaita cannot be claimed as the only proper understanding of advaita. Tell me, where do you find a fault with my views and I will explain. Do waste time telling silly stories.

 

[ajay0]

You and your advaitans do not have a copy-right on advaita. Your understanding of advaita cannot be claimed as the only proper understanding of advaita. Tell me, where do you find a fault with my views and I will explain. Do waste time telling silly stories.

A quack who states himself to be a cardiologist or skin specialist after reading a few books or newspaper articles in the subject, and tries to set up a practice attracting prospective gullible clients, will also argue in the same manner, when he is criticised by intellectual society.

Tell me, where do you find a fault with my views and I will explain.

We have already discussed your viewpoints thoroughly in this thread.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Again the quack! Now I do not know who is a quack? You or me? I consider you as a quack.
Nothing original, just quotes from books and people, whom you consider as enlightened. Why should you expect me to consider all of them as enlightened? If you are an advaitist, why should you have an 'atma' and why should there be a 'God'? What proof you have for this?
If you have discussed my points in the topic, what are you bickering about? It is because of people like you that I must have left the other forum. It is no fun talking to "koop mandukas" (frogs in the well), it feels like talking to a Christian or a Muslim fundamentalist. You expect me to say yes to all trash that you write?

 

[ajay0]

Again the quack! Now I do not know who is a quack? You or me? I consider you as a quack.

Similar arguments will be mentioned by quacks I mentioned in the earlier post.

Nothing original, just quotes from books and people, whom you consider as enlightened.

Which shows that I am on the right track, as endorsed by the sages and scriptures.

Anyway I do not endorse delusional thinking as original.

Why should you expect me to consider all of them as enlightened? If you are an advaitist, why should you have an 'atma' and why should there be a 'God'? What proof you have for this?

I have already stated that Brahman in Advaita is impersonal, and is synonymous with the Atman distinct from Jivatman.
Proof lies in experiential understanding through meditation and samadhi, which you refute as you are content with vague armchair speculation and think that is more than enough , and that no training under a realized sage or saint or advaitan institution is required.

If you have discussed my points in the topic, what are you bickering about? It is because of people like you that I must have left the other forum.

I have discussed and showed its variance from advaita, and asked you to reconsider your pseudoadvaitan beliefs. Here as well I am doing the same.

It is because of people like you that I must have left the other forum.

Falsehood will not thrive in a scholarly and professional atmosphere.

Before T.N.Seshan became the chief election commissioner in India, there were many malpractices and electoral fraud being committed in India.

A political leader who got elected from a certain constituency, got votes which were double the population of that constituency and incidents as such were common. The incorruptible Seshan implemented the law meticulously, and ensured clean elections later on, and many fraudulent practices by corrupt politicians came to an end.