Category: Life after death, reincarnation




Judge William K. — Reincarnation

Objections are often ascends against the "Rebirth" and it seems strong to those who do, arise from the emotional part of our nature. They say: "We do not want to be someone else in another life, and how can we get to know our friends and loved ones, if they do so, we change our individual personal qualities, character traits? Those absorbing affection that we form are forming here that happiness seemed to be impossible without those we love. "

It is useless to say in response that if reincarnation is the law, it can not and will not have any value (for him — prim.per.) That you liked or did not like us to. Until someone manage their likes and dislikes, logical arguments do not dispel the objections, and if it's cold coldly stated that beloved objects of our affection goes with the death of us all, the reason is not given relief well is done strictly accurate statement statement . In fact, one of adversity suffering conditional suschestvovavniya — is apparent hindrance loss forever those whom we place our serdtsa.Tak to avert this difficulty, raised the eternal presence of death, the Christian churches have come up with their heavens, in which it is possible reunion with one condition — acceptance of dogma Redeemer. None of their believers do not seem to consider the fact that, as always, many of those who are most closely associated with us all ties, do not respond and will never meet this premise condition, the happiness of heaven is not to be possible, When we are constantly aware know that those unbelievers suffer in hell, for we left enough space to allow the faithful to let us know of friends, but we can not forget the rest. Then the difficulty is greater than ever.

Question must be asked: what is this love? This is either: a) the love of simple physical body, or b) the love of the soul within. Of course, in the first case, after death, the body decomposes, it is impossible for us, and there is no need for us to want to see him in another life, when we are not completely materialistic. A person belongs only to the body. Thus, if the soul that we love, inhabits another physical body, it is the law — part of the law of reincarnation, or not often expounded on which details are not retained stay — we are again, in the incarnation, will meet the same soul in a new monastery. However, we are not always able to recognize her. But this recognition or memory of those we have known before, is one of the subjects of our objects of study and practice. It is not only the law, as found in the ancient books, but it was positively stated and approved in the history of the Theosophical Society, in a letter to the Adept, addressed some of London Theosophists not so many years ago. In it, he asked them whether they allow that they are together as embodied the essence of the first time, and claimed that it is not and has established a rule: the Real, the real properties of affinity, attraction, affinity, affinity living souls gathered together in the land of their .

It would not be fair or to be united against our will, associated with those who makes us claim the mother, father, brother, son or wife of a past life. These relationships, as such, are grown only from the physical connections, and the souls that are similar, and that really love each other, as well as those that feed hatred, brought together in mortal bodies present as a father and son, current, or vice versa.
So, then, the doctrine of Devachan we have the answer. In this state, for all practical purposes and to satisfy our desires, we have with us everyone we loved on earth, when we are again on reincarnation with those for whose souls we are naturally attracted to.

Living according to the highest and best of our belief, for humanity and not for themselves, we make it possible that we finally find some earthly lives of the people we love, and the loss of which all seems so bleak and uninviting prospect.

It was proposed that the magazine "The Way" to Theosophists briefly recorded as incurred any arguments on which they come they find to support the doctrine of reincarnation. One offers is this: that the constancy of individual character and attitude of mind seems a strong argument, and cites the fact that when he was a young man 30 years ago, he wrote a letter to himself on the question of God, nature and the inner man, and is now, by rereading this letter that it is almost exactly expresses his present attitude. He also thinks that the inner nature of each reveals itself at an early age, remaining life, and as each character is different, it had to be the embodiment of explaining responsible for these differences. And, what is the assertion that the differences in the nature of required nasledsvtennosti seems eliminated consistently refuted the essential character, even if, as far as we know is the case, the scientists and began to deny the sufficiency of heredity to explain our differences.

Another writes: If heredity explained that existing in our lives, making us feel that we have lived here before, then breeding dogs and horses would show similar huge differences that are observed in humans. But vysokoporodnaya female will produce the light from the father of equal breed a litter of puppies, all of which show one character, whereas in the most vysokorodovyh families of people well known that children are different from each other so much that we can not rely on the result. Then again, considering the objections raised on the basis of heredity, not to be forgotten that just a little attention was paid to cases where heredity does not give an explanation.

Innate differences character. Large differences in the abilities of reincarnation seems to appeal to both the explanation. Note that the savages have the same brain and body like ours, and yet takoyzhe character or intelligence, they seem to be non-progressive ego, who are unable to make the car due to the fact that by reason of the brain responds to its highest limit .

The problem of child death

Question. The more I think about it, the more I think it's a secret. If we incarnate either for better or for the development of punishment for sins committed in a past incarnation, why should so many children who live only a few days or weeks? Once again, they go out of the body, did not advancing, and not much suffering.

Answer. Secrets to deepen inquirer, if he's definitely set us be clear that any statement of the Theosophical doctrine itself necessarily the whole doctrine. In the question assumes that we incarnate for better development, whether for correction, while it is only a partial view of the problem. We make as a result of the reasons given in the motion. So we may be here for a reward or punishment, or by choice, or simply to work again, or pleasure, or to punish others or their discipline, or for our own discipline, etc. for thousands of purposes. Evolution of race makes us incarnate, we did act according to law. The first answer is completely explains most of this, but it is possible and even a different view.

Considered by the birth parents and the early death of a child are both fun, discipline and punishment. If the loss is accepted received correctly, the result is a discipline, if against it (the loss — prim.per.) Rise, it is felt only punishment; pleasure and reward comes with the birth of a child, and although the cause of this pleasure soon disappeared, its possible impact effect his father and mother had not been destroyed. Then, again, the ego, which has tried to start a new life in the family, but quickly dropped out of it, could either make a short step to a better environment to the environment than it had before, or run away from a family where nothing but obstacles and evil will not be surrounded it. Through these reflections as these, the "secret" will be made clear.

Question. I heard the objection to reincarnation is that it contradicts the power to shape the character of the mother and her child's tastes. Perhaps, if the seven principles were formed or assembled in order, and the bottom would be the first, this argument will be granted.

Answer. The ego is not in the body at any time. Body — is extremely material tool that is dark or animated ego. We used to say that our souls are trapped in our bodies, because it said the ancient. But when they used this phrase was added additional explanation of the body — the current, and it was believed that the latter was more than just a physical visible frame. The body and its continuing involvement is much more than what is available to our eyes. In fact, what we see in our bodies is the only visible part of the firm or, each person carries around (himself — prim.per.) At the same time and more intangible parts of the body, which, however, are very powerful in its action . Visible body is a material core, and the rest — it's less material border or emanation. So when the ancients said about the soul trapped in the body, they included the word "body" of the expanded value above. At the time of conception is created astral body or a model form, and creates a potential ego, enveloped man, communications ego with the body by means of the principle of Manas is in osnnovnom, at age seven, and from that moment the ego is involved, or entangled in the body. But before such material entanglement it was first caught and involved in the passion and desire — the principle or Kama — which is always an effective and efficient realization of the reason for the ego.

We know that this forms part of the Kama skandhas or aggregates, one of which a material body.
I can not see the power of the objections of reincarnation, that it contradicts the power to influence the child's mother. It does not contradict, because his mother gives him (the child — prim.per.) The body with all its tendencies tendencies, and she gives him milk, thus strengthening these inclinations trend. It certainly does not directly affect the ego, and he was lucky that it can not, because then it would really frustrate its development. That karma of the past leads the child to the mother, and this karma can be (in the following — prim.per.) — To have a good or bad birth, are having beneficial or harmful influence of the mother.

Question. If the ego is not animates the body of seven-year child, as it should be explained to justify the suffering of this age? What benefits it can bring the ego?

Answer. Of course no child could suffer if it would not be karma. And since some of the children do not suffer, the question may be asked why a child is just fine? The answer must be that this is karma. The same is true of suffering: it is the karma of the soul. This should also be the fact that the ego perceives pain and knows what it is. The child can not, but even in his life (this — prim.per.) Often seen in later years why and for what have been passed some suffering. Take the example of a young man who had many difficulties and hardships from an early point, and which is thus developed a resistance and other good qualities, but which could become much less strong and not so good, if light conditions are always accompanied him in his youth and here suffering valuable. Again, take the example of children savages who have experienced what a civilized child would call suffering. At the same there is no suffering at all, if we are not saying that there is an absolute definition of what is suffering. But while they say that the soul does not reach full mastery of the body up to 7 years, as a general rule, it is the one karma leads the soul to this body, and therefore all the suffering or joy — this is the domain of the soul in the body of the molecule, so that we must always remember that the whole person, body and soul, united as one, and the mass of molecules per se is so karma incoming soul as any other circumstance, environment or quality. The question should not be determined only on the basis of "good for the ego," but in terms of cause and effect, depending on the relationship, communication, and Karma.

Problem of sex

Question. Is there any statement in the writings of Madame Blavatsky, or anyone else who presumably would have to know for the fact that the ego is embodied in turn in different floors, or just in general in prtivopolozhnom field?
Answer. I do not remember having somewhere in the records of HP Blavatsky read the statement in favor of the referenced, as well as my memory serves me, there can be found a statement in favor of the ego alternately embodied in male and female bodies and in the written comments on various subjects made adepts, who sent her to the world. Can be found the doctrine that by this time in our evolution ego now in human bodies have been through the whole of any, every experience, and both sexes, but it does not support the conclusion of the conclusion that such a realization as the floor in the regular alternates — but not denies (it). This is simply not related to the issue.

The question seems to be interesting to many, but I have to admit the complete lack of interest in him. If my next birth should be a woman's body, I do not care. It is a matter of record that the ego is very well acted in the body, called Elena P.Blavatskaya and vice versa, the other good at in a male body, called Shankaracharya. It is said that one Maggi — a woman — in India is also a great yogi. And, as I am absolutely indifferent, my comments could be construed considered unfilled commitment to the floor, some so clear and so often blow smoke in the eyes.

Well, then, I do not stick to alternate theory. It is too trivial commonplace for the very first glance. Further it seems that it breaks with the advent of the personal manager for her natural conclusion, the making of human life and nature — our only guide in such matters. If we assume an anthropomorphic God, who made the law that every ego must now have the following male and female form in her life, no matter how the laws of attraction and repulsion trends are working in other areas, there may be some possibility maintain provisions that regular sex change is the rule. But the universe is governed by law, not by whim. Let us then consider a moment to look at one or two sides.

Karma — of other lives — determines where, how and when we are born. But in the discussing the problem, one of the branches of the branches of the law of karma, which should have the greatest attitude of a trend. In other words, the trend implicit in a previous life will determine the trend of a particular family for the next birth. And we must also look at the issue essentially masculine and feminine nature, and not as a simple matter of appearance or function. If we discover that there is an essential distinguishing characteristic of the female character, which is opposed to the male, then we might be able to come to the likelihood of a possible conclusion — although, as I have above remarked, very uninteresting and useless anyway.

Now, according to my limited vision female character per se is concrete, ie his trend of thought, speech and action directed to a specific, while the male character seems to me per se contrary. Kabbalists and ancient of all the lands may not be an authority for my readers, but they support this view. And the existence of exceptions in both sexes does not contradict this view, but rather to support it, since it is so easy because we recognize that a woman who has a male or female character who is female. This difference was not invented by tyrannical men, but it seems that it exists in the race actually. For in spite of where you go or how civilized or savage, modern or ancient your examples, they always show the same differences and characteristics.

And do you admit or deny this particular individual, private, otedlnoe specific, particular description of a concrete and abstract, is still true that the essential female character — whatever the hallmark — is completely different from the essential male.

Now, then, if the ego (a) to develop the infinite pain and suffering of many lives over many lifetimes female character, it likely that this trend will be exhausted soon dry up? Or, if it was installed laid one life, it is likely that it will dry up the death in order to allow to allow the next incarnation in the opposite sex? I think not. It might be that the ego, as a man in a previous life, could be embodied in the following as a woman, but it would mean that he found laid tendency for whatever was the essential character of a woman — in my opinion, the concreteness of thought ( lies — prim.per.) in the depth of his nature — or for many other reasons. It is not wise to establish such a fixed and immutable iron rule. Nature does not work that way. It's always going to intend to violate any rule, it is always close to a violation of a rule, which we foolishly thought the rule of eternal duration.

So, I conclude on this, the ego will continue (to be born — prim.per.) As a woman or a man as much, as long as it is the nature of the deep cut of the same profile, fashion and trends that defined gender as a whole, in which it embodied. In my poor judgment, regular alternation theory is unfounded. But, ultimately, it is a question that none of us can solve. Christian apostles considered the embodiment of feminine lower on the scale than men when they say that a woman makes only marriage, but even some Christian Theosophists can deny the Apostles in this.

Ego goes through a series of incarnations, in some of which it can animate the body of a man in the other — women. Designed a floor guide, consciously chosen spiritual ego, to improve knowledge or it depends on the karma generated in a previous life? Can we say that any principle prevails in the same field more than the other?

If masculine quality is a dominant characteristic, the ego probably will next be in a male body, if not, then in another field. But the answer to the question Visishtadvaytizma consecrated doctrine that says "Good Karma — is the one that is pleasing to Ishvara (the ego) and bad karma — is one that is distasteful to him."

SQL - 17 | 0,410 сек. | 7.44 МБ