BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Coming Around Again - The Reincarnation Thread

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
raelianautopsy
21:17 / 28.04.04
I think maybe I heard once about some mythology that says that it takes a soul three weeks/21 days to reincarnate after dying. It may just be in my head because I want that to be the number. Has anyone ever heard from any mythology about how long it takes to die and be reborn?

The reason is that I just learned that Philip K. Dick died on March 2 1982, and I was born in March 23 1982. It would be cool if I was a reincarnation of him.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
21:56 / 28.04.04
Well... Have you wrote any cool books yet?
 
 
raelianautopsy
23:29 / 28.04.04
I wrote a bunch of stuff in the Creation section that most people don't like.

I don't want to be egotistical and say I am as good as Philip K. Dick, because as of now I am most certainly not in that league, but I just think the reincarnation thing would be interesting as an idea.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
00:13 / 29.04.04
Then I say decide that you are reincarnated. Decide thats how long it takes.

And start writing. Don't try to copy him just write like two hours a day. fill notebooks with crap. Eventually you will get at least semi good. Meanwhile try to recover your lost personality read your old life's books.

Between the two activities something interesting might happen.
 
 
raelianautopsy
00:54 / 29.04.04
Well thank you for the support.

Though I'm still curious if there are any mythologies out there that say anything about how many days it takes to reincarnate.
 
 
Never or Now!
02:59 / 29.04.04
I think it's 49 days in Tibetan Buddhism.
 
 
morning Dew
03:36 / 29.04.04
the tibetan book of the dead DOES give 49 days....
The pineal gland develops out of the roof of the fetal mouth at this point which is also the establishment of gender. Learned this from Strassman in "DMT:The Spirit Molecule"
 
 
adamswish
16:26 / 29.04.04
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Timothy Leary declare himself to be the reincarnation of Crowley at a time that the great beast was still alife?

Seem to remember reading it in one of the cosmic trigger book of R A W.

And to add to the original question: is there anything that says you are stuck in the movement of time with reincarnation.

I have a little theory that maybe you're reincarnated within your own life span and that nirvana and the end of the cycle is reached when you eventual meet "another you".

Just wondered if I had cut and pasted that thought from somewhere else (I have a habit of doing that).
 
 
raelianautopsy
17:16 / 29.04.04
I've had a theory like that too. If the afterlife is a higher dimension than our three-dimensional world than it could be higher than the fourth dimension. The theory I had was that there are signifigantly less souls in the world then we think, and your soulmate is actually someone with your soul.

So 49 days according to Tibetan Buddhism the only number?
 
 
adamswish
18:18 / 29.04.04
my theory developed from my understanding of the aboriginal theory behind "walkabout".

Basically (or to put it another way as I understand it) an aboriginal will wander the outback until such time as they meet themselves whereupon they make fire and talk for the night. The next morning they return to their life.

I've just upped it to a universal method.
 
 
Skeleton Camera
17:58 / 30.04.04
Both the 21 and 49 variables are multiples of 7. Which connects to the 7 years it takes for the body to regenerate and other phenomena related to 7-cycles...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:16 / 01.05.04
Er returns to life after 10 days in the Republic... I'm not sure whether that's standard issue, mind, and he's not reincarnated so much as resurrected...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
04:40 / 07.05.04
The resurrection of Christ took 3...

...and his reincarnation's taken 2000 years so far...
 
 
h3r
18:19 / 07.05.04
I am a believer of the 49-days idea (also first came across it in the TBOTD and strassmans dmt book ). Very interested in the pineal gland research, and visualization/travelling practices I do seem to confirm the 49day logic for me.
but i do not believe that reincarnation is as simple as one soul manifesting in its capacity again in a new physical body in this reality after 49 days.
I rather believe it to be so:
at "death" the soul-awarness of a person re-gains awareness of its identity as an aspect of a larger "oversoul"-type-mother-entity. the 49 day period is only relevant in this universe / reality (the oversoul-mother-entity resides in higher/different dimension though), ergo it is only relevant to the soul-aspect/person identified with this reality. The 49 day period after death i believe to be a re-integration phase into the oversoul, and for the embryo/after conception, a period of "descent" from oversoul identity to physical life.
"reincarnation" happens simultaneously, but is not directly connected to the 49 days period we perceive here in our universe. Oversoul-mother-entity constantly and simultaneously splits up (kinda like in the hermetic "law of mentalism") into a infinte multitude of aspects, residing in all kinds of planes/realties. these aspects include rocks, animals, people in this world in various times, past, future, etc, as well as in slight different paralle universes as well as utterly unthinkable lifeforms of all kinds in other universes/dimensions.

so my answer to the initial question "how long does it take to die and then reincarnate ":
happens in an instant. all the time, constantly, simultaneously.

thanks for bearing with me
 
 
h3r
18:22 / 07.05.04
The theory I had was that there are signifigantly less souls in the world then we think, and your soulmate is actually someone with your soul.
I think our theories overlap quite nicely here, ray!
 
 
EventHorizon
02:41 / 02.08.06
Funny...I was thinking about who the reincarnation of Philip K. Dick might be, so I searched for reincarnation on Barbelith...and ironically enough the first result I found was someone pondering whether they might be the reincarnation of Dick...maybe I should have posted this in the coincidences thread?
 
 
Doc Checkmate
12:09 / 02.08.06
Here's my theory:

Deciding what you "believe" about reincarnation based on fuck all is basically a waste of time. I'm not saying this to be a dick, but because there are (at least allegedly) methods for getting to the truth, and we'd be better served pursuing them than speculating. What's your basis for believing your own pet theory? Is it because it sounds cool? Because frankly, so does a flat earth with sea monsters guarding the edges.

If you're really interested in getting to the truth of reincarnation, you might wish to try the method prescribed by Buddhist monks. They claim (I can't vouch for this) that practicing samatha meditation to the jhana (or dhyana) level will greatly empower your mind and enable you to actively remember your past lives. If your curiosity burns hot enough to put some work in, then clear out a short time in your daily schedule to sit quietly and watch your breath, or follow a practice from another tradition if you know one. Your other options are crisscrossing the globe scientifically investigating reported cases of past life recollections, or just being satisfied that you might find out when you die.
 
 
EmberLeo
16:44 / 02.08.06
I'm another in the "linear time doesn't matter when you don't have a body" camp. But then I also don't assume humans always reincarnate human... though I've concluded that it's likely we reincarnate on Earth, at least, I'm still not quite sure exactly why that would be. Bound fates or something, I don't know.

A combination of spiritual habits and experiences have caused me to wonder if my Great Aunt was actually another incarnation of my soul. It's not arbitrary, but the explanation is a bit odd.

Question: Is mythology tying Reincarnation to the quickening of the baby?

--Ember--
 
 
illmatic
09:26 / 03.08.06
I very much agree with Doc C on this. I think manufacturing your own theories about this subject is very likely to be simply fantasising. One way to get beyond this might be to look at the source traditions we (ie. the West) have taken these ideas from. We've discussed elsewhere how reincarnation is built into the fabric of Tibetan culture.

Here is a very interesting article with author June Campbell where she mentions how reincarnation, in her view, ties in with Tibetan patricarchal power structures and the disappearence of female lineage tradtions:

To my understanding, it {the disappearence of female tantric priestess) is partly explained by the very unusual social structure that developed in Tibet. Other societies developed kinship, or a monarchy- or lineages that were passed through kinship or, later on, through wealth, or other mechanisms that created a cohesive social system.

The Tibetans incorporated an aspect of Buddhist teachings that had to do with rebirth and reincarnation into the social system, so that you had divine incarnation or what are called tulkus-- little boys--that are identified as being the reincarnations of previous lamas and are born with advanced capacities for enlightenment. In other words: power by incarnation.

She goes on to address issues of inherent sexism in Tibetan culture, and the problematic sexual relationship she had with a famous Tibetan lama, which is the focus of the article. I just pulled out that quote to point out it's a more complex subject than "plug n' play" Western approaches to esotericism will give it credit for.
 
 
EmberLeo
22:46 / 03.08.06
Karma and Caste systems and whatnot certain complicate the question of reincarnation.

But I honestly don't see why the relatively simple question of whether or not our souls go through more than one round of having a body *must* be bound into specific social structures. I mean, it's such a fundamental question. Of course, I was raised to believe in reincarnation without any presumed social structure around it, so perhaps I'm biased...

--Ember--
 
 
illmatic
05:51 / 04.08.06
But I honestly don't see why the relatively simple question of whether or not our souls go through more than one round of having a body *must* be bound into specific social structures.

I disagree that it is a "relatively simple" question. If it was "relatively simple" surely it would be an easy fact to establish? I mean, the statement you've made above rests on the assumption that we have "souls" - how do you know? What's your evidence? What are your grounds for belief? etc etc. I think it's really important to have this kind of critical dialogue with yourself, and obviously, the culture we are in (or looking towards/ borrowing from), is going to play a shaping factor here. An assertion of "relative simplicty" ignores the fact that either culture can support, negate, collude with and supress all kinds of beliefs.

This dialogue spills over from one I was having with Doc Checkmate in another thread, in which we agreed that if one wanted to look at reincarnation, it would be productive to study the cultures these ideas orginated in (rather than pulling random ideas out the air, 'cos they fit what you want to believe). If you do that, you'll find these ideas have a degree of complexity around them, a complexity that isn't commonly acknowledged in Western re-appropriations of the concept. I used the quote above to illustrate that.

For me, the whole issues of power and privelge around the tulkus and reincarnated lineages are really interesting, as are their knock on social effects. Read the rest of the interview to see June Campbell's views on this, and how these issues (and others) were operating invisibly in her practice and her relationship with Kalu Rinpoche. I think if we do this kind of critical thinking, we end up with a much richer view of the religious traditions we're borrowing from, their place in the Western world, and our relationships with them.

To give another relevant example - are there no power relations at work in the controversy surrounding the Chinese Goverment's selection of it's own, alternative Panchen Lama?
 
 
illmatic
05:58 / 04.08.06
In short, I don't believe these process are relatively simple, becuase I don't believe they take place "outside" of culture.

*oh, for the gift of brevity*
 
 
EmberLeo
06:35 / 04.08.06
Okay, so two things, just off the bat.

1: I meant "simple" relative to the elaborate and detailed cultural information in, say, Hinduism.

2: Since when is scientific demonstrability the only definition of "simple"? How about "not difficult to explain succinctly to the average person"?

The concept of reincarnation by itself is not actually all that complicated a concept. Yes, it, like every other idea in existence, does not exist in a conceptual vacuum, and it is attached to a number of complications - different sets in different cultures, no less.

I also believe there's a rather drastic difference between believing things that you thought about, and decided they might be interesting, and believing things based on your own life experiences, and those of the people you interact with regularly.

Not that research is a bad thing, but knowing why one, dozens, or thousands of other people have a belief similar to mine doesn't actually change the fact that I hold my own beliefs. Nor, if I really believe, as opposed to just thinking it, does knowing somebody thinks I appropriated it cause me to believe it any less.

So I guess what I'm saying is that there's a line that isn't being drawn here, between deciding something is true, and actually believing it to begin with.

Wow, I hope I'm making sense.
 
 
EmberLeo
06:59 / 04.08.06
I just re-read this, and I think I sound unduely argumentative, so I want to clarify...

First off, I realize the concern about manufacturing theories is primarily in response to the "it would be cool if..." angle.

I just think there are more levels and contexts that matter than the two extremes of Arbitrary Western Appropriation, or Ancient Eastern Traditions.

In short, I don't believe these process are relatively simple, becuase I don't believe they take place "outside" of culture.

See, that's tough, because I don't think the belief in reincarnation exists outside of cultural contexts, but I think there's a difference between the human belief in something, and the actual occurence of that thing.

For example, human beliefs in the significance and occurence of solar eclipses certainly exist in the context of human culture. But the occurence of solar eclipses exists outside of that.

So I would say, if reincarnation happens, and I believe it does, that occurence is not necessarily influenced or defined by human culture. But our perception of it inevitably is.

I think it's useful to research other people's perception of reincarnation. I do not believe lack of research into other people's perception invalidates my own perceptions on the subject.

But neither of these things is the same as deciding, based on neither perception nor research, that it would happen to be nifty if something were true.

I hope that makes MORE sense
 
 
illmatic
07:13 / 04.08.06
I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying, I'm afraid but I think I get the broad outlines. Not sure where you got the scientific demonstrability thing from though.

I also believe there's a rather drastic difference between believing things that you thought about, and decided they might be interesting, and believing things based on your own life experiences, and those of the people you interact with regularly.

I think I get you here, and don't disagree, so I have to ask what are your life experiences (or what are those of those around you, those you take as reliable), and what do you believe?

Not that research is a bad thing, but knowing why one, dozens, or thousands of other people have a belief similar to mine doesn't actually change the fact that I hold my own beliefs. Nor, if I really believe, as opposed to just thinking it, does knowing somebody thinks I appropriated it cause me to believe it any less.

Well, I'd say that firstly, that if you do have a family belief in reincarnation and are from a non-Asiatic background, you're quite the exception in the West. For the vast majority of Westerners, reincarnation is an alien concept. Even in your own family - how far does the belief go back?

Most usages/borrowings of the concept (some encountered in this and other threads here) seem remarkably shallow, precisely becuase it's an alien/exotic concept. It's an exotic object from another culture and is picked up played with, in a way that fits in with cultural appropriation and consumerism. In part, I'm reacting againsts those comments - so far I've been trying to show the cultural complexity that surrounds the subject and bring out some of the nuances. Your family beliefs and experiences may be of a completely different order, I don't know.

I'd add that while I can respect your beliefs and hope we can have a productive dialogue, simply because you really believe something isn't going to make me believe the same thing, or not make me want to question the reasons for your belief.
 
 
illmatic
07:14 / 04.08.06
ooops cross posted. Will read your commnets now.
 
 
illmatic
07:28 / 04.08.06
Cheers, hope my previous didn't come across as too "arch" either.

So I would say, if reincarnation happens, and I believe it does, that occurence is not necessarily influenced or defined by human culture. But our perception of it inevitably is.

I think we're both on the same page here. I am reacting more the "wouldn't it be nifty" arguments here, than anything else.

I'm kind of agnostic on the issue of whether it happens or not. I haven't had any personal experiences that suggest to me it does but then again I've some heard some personal testimonies that have made me more open to the idea.

I think the ways in which this phenomena/absence of phenomena (depending on where you sit, sceptically) is picked up and used culturally are fascinating - I'm fascinated/appalled by the whole Panchen Lama controversy, and more broadly, how this belief copes and adapts as Tibetan Buddhism leaves it's mountain enclave and becomes more popular in the West. (I know reincarnation is not copyrighted to the Tibetans but it's this particular "case study" I know the most about).

If you do want to expand on any of your beliefs or experiences as I inquired about previously, I'd be happy to hear them, though I understand that this might be private stuff.
 
 
EmberLeo
07:53 / 04.08.06
It's not that it's private, per se, though I do think I sound either totally full of myself, or utterly insane when I try to explain some of my experiences and perceptions attached to reincarnation. Mostly I just have no idea how to summarize it that wouldn't diminish it's significance to me.

I will say that I'm pretty sure belief in reincarnation is something my parents developed when they were doing a lot of work and research into mysticism, which was before I was born. So they raised me with that belief, amongst other things, and regardless of it's social validity, it's awfully hard to just decide not to believe it at this point, I'm afraid.

Especially since my perception of life experiences has been informed by the assumption of reincarnation all along, you know?

For example, I have about... 6, maybe 7 friends that the moment I met them I recognised them on a deep, gut level. I felt like I'd been waiting for them, and finally here they were. Since the feeling was mutual in all cases, I figure I'm not off my rocker.

My perception is that we were friends, associates, or possibly family in other lives, but with one exception, I haven't dug into it much. I pretty much assume that if I needed to remember my past lives, I would.

The other things I would be happy to explain - in email if you'd rather not clutter up the thread. But I'm afraid they require rather a lot of context, and I don't want to be confusing, or sound crazy.
 
 
Quantum
10:43 / 04.08.06
*oh, for the gift of brevity*
Does reincarnation take 21 days? = How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:47 / 04.08.06
I know. The fact that there've actualy been some genuinely interesting contributions to this thread does not lessen the feeling of STABBY HATE I get when I see the title, abstract, or "Hey, I might be Philip K. Dick, me!" first post.

Sorry. Am currently made of git.
 
 
EmberLeo
10:49 / 04.08.06
Does reincarnation take 21 days? = How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Mu?

--Ember--
 
 
illmatic
12:44 / 04.08.06
Shall I mod for retitle/changed abstract to make it less annoying?
 
 
Ticker
17:38 / 04.08.06
...also just to throw in a factoid the surviving epics we have from Ireland and Wales are pretty clear that they believed reincarnation did on occassion happen.

(I'm trying to wean myself off of the problematic label of 'Celtic' these days.)

such as:

Gwion and Cerridwen

Also it is often believed that Cuchulain is the reincarnation of Lugh (or maybe just his son). There are a couple more dramatic tales of someone being eaten and reborn if you poke around like the The Wooing of Etain.

There seems to be a mechanism in place for it happening but I don't see a lot of evidence that it was the universal outcome of death in those cultures. There was way too much emphasis on the Lands of the West and the joining with the Sidhe folk.

My own belief is that it is optional but then as Heinlein says:
"Why worry about the Afterlife? You'll find out soon enough."
 
 
EmberLeo
20:13 / 04.08.06
That's good to know. I knew that various European mythology and folklore had some support for the concept, but I haven't put much effort into specifically finding it yet - too many other things on my plate.

--Ember--
 
 
Rigettle
07:45 / 10.08.06
In the case of the Tibetan diaspora it's not really a matter of western appropriation unless some westerners, like newagers, take a superficial understanding of an idea & promote it as ancient wisdom.

The Tibetans want their traditions to survive & they want their (for want of a better word) gnostic traditions to survive more than anything else. (Gnostic - same root as the sanskrit word jnana for wisdom.)

The thing is, as I think the great Trungpa Rinpoche constantly pointed out, that Buddhism is non-theistic & has no concept of a spirit or soul that transmigrates. No self! Also Budddha exhorted his students not to take on board any kind of religious beliefs in the ordinary sense of the word but to test the teachings in the laboratory of their own body-mind. Lamas today who speak good english, at least those that I have met or read, often don't go into much detail about rebirth because of the body mind dualism implied.

Obviously there is a contradiction here, it's the old exoteric, esoteric thingy. If folks want or need something to believe in then you give them that as skillfully as you can in the hope that they will grow out of it & liberate their minds later.

Nevertheless, even in a secret teaching situation the lama will talk about rebirth as a fact of life resulting from cause & effect in the linear time line. The idea is that to all intents & purposes that is where we currently find ourselves. What is reborn? Well strictly speaking nothing. The flame is passed from one firebrand to the next. A flame is not a subject or an object it is a process. Or maybe information. The iteration of an algorithm. You can read Permutation City by Greg Egan an excellent sci fi novel which is concerned with this from an IT point of view.

No ego ( see discussions in the Barbelith Laboratory to discover how close modern neuro science is to this view ) means nothing re-incarnates because when the relativistic body mind dies that identity evaporates. Some kind of [unconscious] process seems to run on in the linear time line, but what could it be?

The enlightened perspective is beyond time & any kind of conditioning. If you start saying quantum this or quantum that I personally think you've lost it. It's just a back way round to the same old dualism.

I would like to suggest that its not a body, mind, identity, time problem because we are so fundamentally wrong about the nature of reality itself.

It looks like reincarnation to us in the way that a sphere looks like a circle in flat land.

Another way of putting the cat among the pigeons with this one is to examine our deeply materialistic conditioning & the ambivalence & fear we have about the whole subject - cultural values. Science has given us such awesome powers. It works, to a point. But upon what metaphysical assumptions does it rest?

Maybe, instead of consciousness being an epiphenonenon of the brain, the brain is an epiphenomenon of consciousness.

I think if we say this person is a reincarnation of that person then we kind of miss the point. Yes, I know the Tibetans do it all the time, but maybe the Masters who are really in the know mean something else by it.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply