exista reincarnare?

Se vorbeste mereu de reincarnare cand se vorbeste de om . Ce este si ce nu este?

păi, în primul rând este....ceva
este o ideologie, budistă, la origini, și care a căpătat o foarte mare amploare în ultima perdioadă. explicația?: Toată lumea dorește să creadă, să creadă că mai există și altceva decât ceea ce trăim noi acum. dar asta este o dorință de a crede în altceva, zic io: în înviere!
e cu totul altceva
cât edspre reîncarnare.............e o mare păcăleală infirmată chiar matematic:
1+1=2, nu?
păi dacă inițial am fost 1+1 (Adam și Eva) cum am ajuns, prin reîncarnare 6,7 miliarde? xerox? probabil, dar unul performant,nu?
e clar că nu e vorba de așa ceva, reîncarnarea nu poate să ne șteargă conștiințele pentru care ne reîncarnăm ca să expiem păcatele de care nu ne mai aducem aminte. e posibil așa ceva?

furnici, on Sep 7 2005, 22:01, said:

  Nu vreau sa aduc aici in discutie problema existentei reincarnarii ca atare, fata de care sunt foarte sceptic, ci problema existentei si raspandirii teoriei reincarnarii.
  Furnici greseste cand spune ca respectiva teorie este "buddhista" la origini si s-a raspandit mai mult doar in ultima perioada.
  Herodot, in lucrarile lui de istorie, considera ca primii care au elaborat teoria reincarnarii au fost egiptenii si de la ei au adoptat-o mai apoi scolile filozofice grecesti. Gasim teoria reincarnarii si la pitagoricieni (adeptii lui Pitagora il cosiderau pe respectivul ca fiind o reincarnare a lui Achile si nu numai) la orfici (orfismul este o miscare mistico-religioasa de origine traca dar care s-a dezvoltat apoi in orasele grecesti), la platonicieni (a se vedea ce scrie despre reincarnare Platon in "Republica") si in alte scoli filozofice.
  Mai apoi ideea reincarnarii a fost dezvoltata in hermetism (miscare mistico-religioasa sincretista din perioada elenista ce combina idei filozofice grecesti cu idei mistice egiptene), a fost preluata de unii autori romani clasici (de exemplu Vergiliu in "Eneida", cand descrie calatoria lui Eneas in Infern si Campiile Eleusine, mentioneaza ca acolo Enea i-ar fi intalnit pe viitorii mari eroi romani, cu Cezar in frunte, care isi asteptau viitoarea reincarnare si urmau sa bea din raul uitarii pentru a pierde memoria vietilor trecute) si de scolile filozofice neo-platonice de pe teritoriul Imperiului Roman (vezi de exemplu ce scrie Plotin).  
  De asemeni, ideea reincarnarii a fost adoptata de o mare parte dintre miscarile gnostice crestine, considerate de catre biserica oficiala ca fiind eretice.
  In Orient, ideea reincarnarii a cunoscut cea mai mare dezvoltare initial in spatiul indian, unde isi au originea atat hinduismul cat si buddhismul si s-a raspandit apoi in Tibet, China, Japonia, Coreea, Mongolia, o parte din Siberia si Asia de Sud-Est odata cu raspandirea atat a buddhismului in principal, dar si a hinduismului (in Cambodgia).
  In Europa precrestina dinafara spatiului greco-roman existau idei referitoare la reincarnare in mitologia de origine celtica si inca mai supravietuiesc in unele basme folclorice irlandeze.
  In Evul Mediu, teoria reincarnarii a fost adoptata de evreii care au pus bazele Kabbalei, cel mai probabil datorita influentei filozofiei grecesti.
  Teoria reincarnarii constituia probabil cea mai raspandita conceptie privind "viata de dupa moarte" in spatiul european inaintea expansiunii crestinismului. Respectivele idei au ajuns sa aiba o raspandire restransa in principal la spatiul extrem-oriental ca urmare a expansiunii crestinismului, Islamului si iudaismului clasic. Au inceput sa repatrunda in Occident cam din secolul XIX, odata cu cresterea interesului occidentalilor pentru filozofia extrem-orientala.

chirionutz, on Sep 7 2005, 21:52, said:

nu.

godLESS, on Sep 8 2005, 14:58, said:

  Cam categoric raspunsul, no offense, desi si eu inclin sa fiu sceptic in privinta asta. :)
  Stiinta actuala nu este capabila nici sa demonstreze existenta vietii dupa moarte, nici  inexistenta ei, si la fel si in cazul existentei sau inexistentei lui Dumnezeu, desi mare parte dintre oamenii de stiinta sunt atei.

About death

Because all bodies die, if you identify with the body, you will fear death.  When you see that you are not the body, you will be indifferent to death.  In Chapter 21 and 22, we shall see directly that we are Reality, which is unchanging and cannot die.  We are not what changes, which is unreal and must die.
All sages attempt to answer the seekers' question, "Where was 'I' before the birth of the body?", and, "Where will 'I' be after the body dies?"  Ramesh Balsekar (whose books, Your Head in the Tiger’s Mouth (1998) and Who Cares? (1999), are excellent summaries of his teaching) teaches that, when the body dies, Consciousness simply disidentifies from it (see also Ramesh's book, A Net of Jewels (1996), meditations for April 13 and June 19).  Indeed, the death of the body is the result of Consciousness disidentifying from it.  Since there was no separate “I” before death, there is none after death, so there is no entity to continue after death.  Thus, there is neither an after-death nor a before-death state for the “I” since it has never existed in the first place.  Without a body there is only pure unmanifest Consciousness.
In the meditation for June 23 in A Net of Jewels (1996), Ramesh Balsekar says,
"The individual does not finally merge with his original nature any more than a wave merges with water.  They were not different to begin with.  A wave is nothing more than the shifting shape of the water itself.  It is not a question of joining separate things but of the abandonment of something inessential and superficial, the false identity of a separate individual entity."
Since there never is a separate "I", there can be no entity either to incarnate or to reincarnate. Ramesh explains the existence of individual characteristics of the body-mind organism as a result of conditioning and heredity (see also Section 5.14).  [Note:  Ramesh says that heredity includes differences projected from the "pool" of consciousness (see Section 8.3) as well as genetic differences.  (The "pool" is a concept that cannot be verified; see Sections 8.4, 8.5.)   Ramesh uses this concept to try to explain the origin of body-minds that are strikingly similar to previous ones, as in the concept of reincarnation.  From the "pool", he says the body-mind may inherit characteristics from previous body-minds, but there is no previous lifetime of the "I" since there is no "I".]  
Some sages teach that, in the absence of the body, Consciousness is still aware of itself. The evidence they cite is an awareness that they say exists during deep (dreamless) sleep. However, note that, in the February 4 meditation in A Net of Jewels (1996), Ramesh states,

"The original state of the Noumenon is one where we do not even know of our beingness."

This is the state before birth and after death.  Since there is no body in this state, there is only Noumenon.  This state is not identical with the states in dreamless sleep, under anesthesia, or while comatose, because in those states there is still rudimentary sentience associated with the brainstem (as seen by an outside observer).  Dreamless sleep, anesthesia, and coma are examples of the presence of absence as depicted in Figure 1.  These are not the same as death because, after the body dies and before it was born, there is a double absence--the absence of the presence of the manifestation and the absence of the absence of the manifestation.  The only way to describe this state is that it is neither presence (waking) nor absence (sleep).  
Although all religions attempt to give some picture of what we will be after death, they are all based on ego fears and desires rather than on personal experience.  The ego may insist that it will continue to exist after the death of the body, but in so doing, it defies the direct evidence of everyone's disappearance during deep sleep or anesthesia.  If the reader cares to imagine some picture of personal life before birth and after death, he or she should be aware that there never can be any kind of direct proof of such states.  Some people think that thought can exist without a body, so that the "I" concept (the soul) may prevail after the death of the body.  But if that state cannot be verified, how can it be said to have existed at all (see Section 9.4)?  
After-death states, such as those described in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, by necessity are intuited or cognized by a living person, so the reliability and motives of that person must be considered. Any intense, personal experience, such as a near-death experience, cannot be proof because such experiences by definition and necessity are not death experiences. The appearance of discarnate entities, such as spiritual guides, deceased relatives, or religious figures, are also not proof because they always appear in living body-mind organisms and therefore could merely be mental phenomena.  
Because near-death and out-of-body experiences require the presence of a brain, they cannot reflect what happens after death.  In fact, out-of-body experiences can even be produced at will by electrically stimulating the right angular gyrus region of the brain (see "Stimulating own-body perceptions", Blanke, Ortigue, Landis, and Seeck, Nature, 419 (2002) 269 - 270).  

In the April 7 meditation of A Net of Jewels (1996), Ramesh says:
"There are many reports of what are popularly considered 'death-experiences', which are mistaken as evidence of what happens after death.  These are in fact only hallucinations experienced by the ego arising from stimulation of certain centers of the brain before, not after, the completion of the death process.  Most of the mystical phenomena recorded as yogic experience are of the same order, movements in consciousness experienced by the ego.  But when man finally surrenders his miserable egoic individuality, there is no experience of anything.  He is the Totality itself."

In the April 4 meditation of the same book, Ramesh says:  
"My relative absence is my absolute presence.  The moment of death will be the moment of highest ecstasy, the last sensorial perception of the psychosomatic apparatus."

On p. 181 of I Am That (1984), Nisargadatta (Ramesh's guru) says:
"Everybody dies as he lives. I am not afraid of death, because I am not afraid of life. I live a happy life and shall die a happy death. Misery is to be born, not to die."

And on p. 122, he says:
"To be a living being is not the ultimate state: there is something beyond, much more wonderful, which is neither being nor non-being, neither living nor non-living.  It is a state of pure awareness, beyond the limitations of space and time.  Once the illusion that the body-mind is oneself is abandoned, death loses its terror; it becomes a part of living."

Sursa: http://faculty.virgi.../consciousness/

http://forum.softped...showtopic=36462

USE SEARCH! :cursing: