On Reincarnation

[SalixIncendium]

Speaking of gender, if the present life is that of a male, there is a 90% probability that the next reincarnation is that of a female. This is because most males are attracted to females and vice versa. Hence the dominant impression in the male and female would be that of the opposite sex, and this is what they turn out to be in the next life and so on.

Is this speculation on your part, speculation of a guru, or is this founded on Scripture?

 

[atanu]

Can you clarify for me what you are saying here? What is it that you are saying migrates from one incarnation to the next? I perceive the personality/ego/small self to be contained within the jiva. Others find these contained withing the jivatman (a concept that really does not exist in my views).

For me, it is I (that which is aware) that reincarnates, not the jiva.

From advaita POV, Ajay is correct. The atman (the original I) is unborn and immortal. It does not reincarnate. The Jivatman (atman with superimposition of mind or the subtle body), that is reflected consciousness and with which we associate wrongly, reincarnates. From advaita viewpoint, jivatman has no reality of its own and as such there is no reincarnation in reality in paramathika terms. I will link two videos again for all to see.

 

[ajay0]

Is this speculation on your part, speculation of a guru, or is this founded on Scripture?

These were general facts observed during past life regression of many yogis by adept guides in an ashram in India. I found it logical.

I am sure a similar pattern may have been observed by western psychiatrists like Dr. Brian Weiss , Dr. Michael Newton and others. There has been case studies in Dr. Weiss's books of souls changing their gender in the succeeding life incarnation.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Since, you are asking for opinions...

My philosophy is that just as the jiva (the ego self) sleeps and dreams, each dream being analogical incarnation, the Ātman "dreams" each incarnation of the jiva in Maya.

Reincarnation (regardless of it being true or false) is illogical. It was invented to aid the theory of Karma; to explain away differences in birth. Some souls are born into opulence and some into poverty or poor health. There was a need to explain these differences and hence, reincarnation.

It is illogical because, there is nothing tangible to reincarnate. Just like you have no recollection of your past life, your next life will have no memory of you. Without such continuity, there is no meaning to the concept. Therefore, for all practical purposes, you are a brand new soul (reincarnation or not).

The original Vedic religion did not believe in reincarnation. Instead, they believed in Pitru loka (realm of ancestors). Souls went to Pitru loka after death and stayed there. It was important to have male children so they would perform regular rites for the welfare of these departed souls. Eventually, with Karma invading the scene, reincarnation soon followed.

The modern Hindu believes in both! To this day, we continue to offer rites to our ancestors (with the assumption that they are in Pitru loka) and at the same time, we also believe that these souls have reincarnated into new bodies (per the Bhagavad Gita, etc.,). Logic went out the window, as it does in most such cases. Some have also creatively attempted to reconcile the two conflicting beliefs.

I think that the jiva who doesn't realize Maya, or awakens from Maya, remains in Saṃsāra until one realizes the jiva is not his/her true self

There is only one self and that is you - as you are now. There is no other true or false self.

There is no birth and no death. And without birth, there cannot be rebirth/reincarnation.

No Jiva is ever born. There does not exist any cause which can produce it. This is the highest truth that nothing is ever born - Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika 3.48

When we have the highest truth laid out clearly for our benefit, why waste time on anything lower?

 

[Marcion]

Saṃsāra is a concept that is common to most dharmic philosophies and religions. Commonly, it is believed that we reincarnate into physical bodies in a cycle of Saṃsāra until we achieve liberation.

I'm not well informed on this subject so I will just share some thoughts I have.
I read that the samskara's which we acquire by acting with ego (without properly surrendering the colours of those actions) will come back to us as a certain level of suffering or enjoyment/comfort in future, but not necessarily in the form or type of experience similar to the action we performed when we acquired the samskara.

So that makes me wonder how our new personality in a next reincarnation is related to our present one. When I was younger the few memories that came back to me from my previous life have a relationship with things that I appreciate in this life also. It is as if some of my former attachments went with me to my present life.

So I'm wondering whether it is not also unfulfilled specific desires and attachments which cause a certain incarnation to happen and not just the "stripped" emotional collected weight of the different samskara's. But that would mean that specific desires that you cultivate in your present life can to some degree point the direction to which type of incarnation you will be heading towards.

On the subject of this relative reality of us jiiva's being just a dream (Maya) in the Mind of Paramatman, I think one should better call it a relative truth because during our life it is very real to us and if we treat is as a dream we will get hurt. After we get liberation or during samadhi we will see how relative it is as a dream or projection of the Higher Self (Atman or Paramatman) but if we cross the highway thinking that it is all just a dream we will get ourselves killed if we don't care about the "realness" of approaching cars and lorries.

 

[Kirran]

If you meditate on 'Who Am I?', it can help to see the ways that thought is formed, and the basis of mind and how that relates to the world we perceive in our lives and how we experience it. While that may not give you a cut and dry answer r.e. reincarnation, it can quite readily give you an understanding of what it is that perpetuates one's life as an individual and how the individual person is secondary rather than primary in that process.

 

[SalixIncendium]

From advaita POV, Ajay is correct. The atman (the original I) is unborn and immortal. It does not reincarnate. The Jivatman (atman with superimposition of mind or the subtle body), that is reflected consciousness and with which we associate wrongly, reincarnates. From advaita viewpoint, jivatman has no reality of its own and as such there is no reincarnation in reality in paramathika terms. I will link two videos again for all to see.

I wasn't implying that @ajay0 was either incorrect or correct. I was merely asking for clarification.

Strangely enough, although this is the advaita POV, to me it implies duality (or even multiplicity, as in vishishtadvaita). It appears to make a distinction among the gross body, the subtle body, and the true Self, or among jiva, jivatman, and atman.

In my view, the jiva or jivatman needs no reality if their own, as the reality in which reincarnation exists for the jiva (Maya) is an illusory experience of the I that is aware (atman).

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you meditate on 'Who Am I?', it can help to see the ways that thought is formed, and the basis of mind and how that relates to the world we perceive in our lives and how we experience it. While that may not give you a cut and dry answer r.e. reincarnation, it can quite readily give you an understanding of what it is that perpetuates one's life as an individual and how the individual person is secondary rather than primary in that process.

Indeed.

Expanding this meditation approach with neti-neti (not this - not this) can aid in revelation of the nature of who one truly is.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Indeed.

Expanding this meditation approach with neti-neti (not this - not this) can aid in revelation of the nature of who one truly is.

To be consistent, such a revelation would also have to comply with neti-neti and therefore, would not be it.

You think you are something other than what you are and are looking forward to knowing what that is. I can tell you that there is no such hidden self that is to be revealed at a future point in time.

Who will this hidden self be revealed to? Such a revelation would require two selves.

 

[atanu]

I wasn't implying that @ajay0 was either incorrect or correct. I was merely asking for clarification.

Strangely enough, although this is the advaita POV, to me it implies duality (or even multiplicity, as in vishishtadvaita). It appears to make a distinction among the gross body, the subtle body, and the true Self, or among jiva, jivatman, and atman.

I agree. See, even to discuss this matter among ourselves, we acknowledge discussion among multiple selves (jiva Ātman). It is not the problem. At this transaction level there are many selves. What Shankara has taught is that the substantive in these multiple selves is the non dual Ātman, reflected in multiple waking and dreaming bodies.

Spoiler: Absolute and Transactional

The problem arises when jiva Ātman fails to distinguish his own “I am” root consciousness from “I am this” consciousness and harbours the notion that the latter is real, thereby appropriating roles of doer and experiencer and experiencing resultant pains of ‘this’ (objects) as the pains of “I’.

In other words, in mode of mAyA, the “I am” (the conscious subject) is confused with “I am this” (subject superimposed by the objects).

All other darsanas (other than advaita) consider “I am this” to have some reality. Advaita says that the subject “I am”(Ātman) is the paramarthika (absolute reality) and “I am this” to have vyavarika (transactional) reality.

In my view, the jiva or jivatman needs no reality if their own, as the reality in which reincarnation exists for the jiva (Maya) is an illusory experience of the I that is aware (atman).

Yeah. Teachers of ajAti vAda (no creation) school such as Shri Ramana would not emphasise rebirth at all. He would instead ask us to enquire whether the “I” was born or not.

At the same time Ramana would himself talk of evolved souls who were ripe to receive ‘neti neti’ teaching. Obviously, we are all not ripe at the same level.

The variation of our own experiences, variation of stations of all of us etc. (that is our experience) can only be explained by considering continuity of jiva Ātman through many bodies.

And such is the teaching of Upanishads and Gita. Shankara’s advaita explains the transmigration taught in Upanishads and Gita as relevant for jiva Ātman, since according to the same upanishads and Gita, Ātman is birthless and immortal.

This can be very easily understood through the analogy of gold and ornaments. Gold ornaments such as rings, chains, bangles are true at the level of design differences. But from POV of gold, there is no multiplicity at all. Jiva-s are beginning-less reality. And Jiv-s do change forms, at the behest of Ishwara. But the reality of Jiva-s is dependent on non dual Ātman. And when the realisation arises that the reality of Jiva is Ātman, the ignorance and pain vanishes. Pain is not individual pain. Pain is pain of the whole.

In advaita, as in every other school of Hinduim, the dispenser of karmphala is Ishwara. So, what body a jiva Ātman will embody,after so-called death, is controlled by Ishwara. I believe that is what @Vinayaka pointed out. And Vinayaka is also correct. Shri Krishna in Gita says “I allocate birth stations according to karma”.

I do not know whether I have added more confusion? I hope not.

Regards and best wishes to all.