Come back as an animal & Darwin's Mother is an Ape

[Ramaraksha]

I ran into a post where someone commented that he believed in Reincarnation and was immediately mocked as coming back as an animal - a cow or a dog. That reminded me of the same mocking that Darwin's work received - that we came from Apes. I know that the relation is tenuous, Darwin actually had something called evidence on his side

But i do want to make it clear that what the ancient Hindus were saying was not limited to Hindus alone - it applied to all of us. They saw people running away from life - building fancy castles in the sky where the living will be nice and easy. They saw this as a focus on the immediate physical pleasures - food, sex and safety. Certainly those who talk about heaven are not talking about doing research for a cancer cure, for building a great future for all humankind, for following in Einstein's footsteps - all they seem to care about are their own physical pleasures, whether they get away from it all - no more worries, no more responsibilities

And the ancients saw that animals cared for the same things - most animals spend their lives chasing after food, having a bit of sex and making sure they don't turn into food for other creatures. They do not have any higher goals in life. Animals have little worries, little responsibilities esp those who live with us - our pets - my sister's cat does nothing all day - just eats, poops and sleeps - zero worries, zero responsibilities! That cat is in heaven!

And so, what they are saying is that Heaven is not elsewhere - it is right here and so is hell. There are no other worlds, this is it! Certainly we know that we don't live in the same world - children, teenagers live in a different world from the rest of us adults. As we age we move on to a different world than when we were young. Dogs are color-blind, they "see" mostly with their noses - their world is different. What about plants? With no eyes how do they perceive the world?

When Hindus talk about different worlds, they were actually talking about different life forms who perceive life differently, hence live in a different world!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I ran into a post where someone commented that he believed in Reincarnation and was immediately mocked as coming back as an animal - a cow or a dog. That reminded me of the same mocking that Darwin's work received - that we came from Apes. I know that the relation is tenuous, Darwin actually had something called evidence on his side

Well, the relationship isn't "tenuous". The word you're looking for is "non-existent". Someone mocking a theory which turned out to be true isn't a logical argument to say that therefore a theory that's being mocked has a higher chance of being true. The whole "actually had something called evidence on his side" thing is pretty fucking important.

Also, there are quite a number of Catholic hospitals, religious charities and the like which are doing quite a lot for cancer research and stuff and working to make the world a better place. Having an idea of Heaven doesn't preclude that sort of thing to a greater degree than having an idea of reincarnation does. Evidence is important, however, so I'm willing to change my view on that if you can back your claim up.

 

[Ramaraksha]

I ran into a post where someone commented that he believed in Reincarnation and was immediately mocked as coming back as an animal - a cow or a dog. That reminded me of the same mocking that Darwin's work received - that we came from Apes. I know that the relation is tenuous, Darwin actually had something called evidence on his side

Well, the relationship isn't "tenuous". The word you're looking for is "non-existent". Someone mocking a theory which turned out to be true isn't a logical argument to say that therefore a theory that's being mocked has a higher chance of being true. The whole "actually had something called evidence on his side" thing is pretty fucking important.
Also, there are quite a number of Catholic hospitals, religious charities and the like which are doing quite a lot for cancer research and stuff and working to make the world a better place. Having an idea of Heaven doesn't preclude that sort of thing to a greater degree than having an idea of reincarnation does. Evidence is important, however, so I'm willing to change my view on that if you can back your claim up.

Did i make you mad? No one is saying other religions are not doing good work but this concerns ideas, it's not about what individual religions or individuals are doing. Many good people in all other religions and atheists as well and these religions condemn them all to Hell - separated like Jews under Hitler and tossed into hell, their good works did not matter. Why would good works by Christians matter if the only way is thru Jesus? you can't have it both ways - either good works matter or they don't

The reason Heaven appealed and even now appeals to a lot of people is that it gives them a chance to run away from all that life puts us thru - the pain and the suffering - that's one of the calling cards right? No more pain or suffering, joy forever? I always wondered do they think of the loved ones that they left behind? The talk is always about seeing their dead loved ones again - but what about the living loved ones that they leave behind? Most who go thru terrible times - do heaven bound people lose their memories?

Say a person is working at a shelter - a homeless shelter, an animal shelter - and he or she dies - does this person want to come back and continue the good work? Research that killed Marie Curie - you think she would be happy to sit in some heaven instead of coming back and continuing her work? That's the idea behind Reincarnation - that you don't give up when the going gets hard, you continue. it's not for everyone - it is for the Warrior

 

[abaddon]

Ramaraksha,

It's not fully clear to me ... Do you believe reincarnation is real? Or is it that you like the idea of it better than the idea of heaven even though reincarnation is not real?

It seems like you alternate between talking of both heaven and reincarnation as ideas then as realities then back again to ideas. Are you clear in your own head about which you mean?

So, do you mean reincarnation really happens? Or is it just an idea that appeals to your "warrior" work-ethic more than heaven does?

 

[Ramaraksha]

Ramaraksha,
It's not fully clear to me ... Do you believe reincarnation is real? Or is it that you like the idea of it better than the idea of heaven even though reincarnation is not real?
It seems like you alternate between talking of both heaven and reincarnation as ideas then as realities then back again to ideas. Are you clear in your own head about which you mean?
So, do you mean reincarnation really happens? Or is it just an idea that appeals to your "warrior" work-ethic more than heaven does?

There is no evidence - of God or heaven or hell or reincarnation. These are but ideas so far, but ideas have consequences - millions of people have died in the past because they found themselves accused as Atheists or finding themselves as members of minority religions. Even today religious ideas kill and continue to do harm

At the core is division and hate based on religion - "only our God can get you into heaven" - that is how the division starts, the manipulation starts and the hate begins. Reincarnation as an idea fights against such division and hate which is why it fell out of favor. I am hoping to fight ideas with ideas

I, quite frankly, fear climate change - millions will suffer and the religious will turn to their leaders and ask why God does not come help them (amazing that they keep promising he will come any day now, they have been saying that for centuries and yet keep finding new suckers) and the religious leaders might use it as an opportunity to get rid of the competition - first to be targeted will be the Atheists and then they will go after the minority religions. I fear mass killings will be the result

Violence has worked and will work again - "holy" books are full of mass murder, even women and children are not spared - if it has happened before and followers are fine with it it can happen again

 

[abaddon]

These are but ideas so far, but ideas have consequences .... I am hoping to fight ideas with ideas....

I agree some ideas are better than others. And reincarnation makes us kin to the rest of earth's life, whereas heaven as an "elsewhere" makes us aliens stuck inside of heads (as does the veneration of technical mastery, consumerism, and humanity... all symptoms of our schizotypal "I'm a thing inside of a brain" delusion).

I think there are better stories to get from the facts we know about earth and our selves though. Seems to me much of what you're trying to convey is in evolutionary thought and ecology, and doesn't need an unpopular and un-evidenced idea like reincarnation being promoted.

Even "Heaven is not elsewhere" looks like a better idea than reincarnation, which suggests "screw up, get another chance". I've wondered if the worst thing about Christianity isn't just that they can't see it as psychological -- they are stuck on the illusion that truth is like an object that's "out there" (though I can't fault them as the only ones that think that way). It'd possibly work as a much-needed re-training of the sense of self into a less me-centric rapacious grotesque. (Not as the "one and only" way of re-training, or maturation, into more expansive selves though). Could work... if humans in general weren't so egoistically literal and adamant about their "truths".

 

[Hermit]

The concept of reincarnation engenders a cold-blooded indifference to the lot of others. Had a leg amputated after you were run over by a bus? You must have been a bad creature in your previous incarnation. That's karma, man. Karma.

 

[Ramaraksha]

The concept of reincarnation engenders a cold-blooded indifference to the lot of others. Had a leg amputated after you were run over by a bus? You must have been a bad creature in your previous incarnation. That's karma, man. Karma.

No, that's a horrible interpretation of Karma - the word Karma means Work - that's it! It's not a metaphysical payback system. For eg you work hard, study, sacrifice you get good grades, don't and you get bad grades - that's all Karma means

Your interpretation makes God a cruel accountant - a master who will punish his slaves for mistakes - that's quite natural because western religions view God as a Master - "we must get down on our knees and beg for his forgiveness, master will forgive and give us the easy good life in heaven" - that is the thought process and that is where these ideas are coming from

Hindus don't view God as a Master - more a parent or a Teacher - we are here to learn - punishment does not help us do that

There is also the other view - Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That - ie you become what you are - if you are a cruel inhuman person, an animal - maybe that life will suit you better and such people become animals in their next life. Or those bound for Heaven - they want the easy good life of doing nothing, zero worries or responsibilities - they will come back as a lower life form - maybe a Tree - sit around doing nothing - maybe sleep all day

But to think that God sits up there and we are some puppets that are being manipulated from second to second is not what Hinduism teaches

 

[Ramaraksha]

I think there are better stories to get from the facts we know about earth and our selves though. Seems to me much of what you're trying to convey is in evolutionary thought and ecology, and doesn't need an unpopular and un-evidenced idea like reincarnation being promoted.

Even "Heaven is not elsewhere" looks like a better idea than reincarnation, which suggests "screw up, get another chance". I've wondered if the worst thing about Christianity isn't just that they can't see it as psychological -- they are stuck on the illusion that truth is like an object that's "out there" (though I can't fault them as the only ones that think that way). It'd possibly work as a much-needed re-training of the sense of self into a less me-centric rapacious grotesque. (Not as the "one and only" way of re-training, or maturation, into more expansive selves though). Could work... if humans in general weren't so egoistically literal and adamant about their "truths".

As I mentioned the only way to fight ideas is thru other ideas it seems

Evolution has been around how long? How much do we now know about the Universe yet people still believe in books that say the sun circles the earth, that this universe was made in 7 days by a guy saying abracadabra. The fear of death and greed for the easy good life overcomes all knowledge and education it seems

As for "Heaven is not out there" - i seem to be the only one saying it - which unnerves me - how many brilliant educated, intelligent philosophers, intellectuals out there and yet to see them blindly repeat what religions preach is disappointing. There doesn't seem to be any new ideas, new way of thinking of the old ideas - how many times have i heard the question - "What will heaven be like?" - not once has anyone asked - "What will i DO in heaven?" - amazing simply amazing that religion has brainwashed even the best of us

 

[Ramaraksha]

The concept of reincarnation engenders a cold-blooded indifference to the lot of others. Had a leg amputated after you were run over by a bus? You must have been a bad creature in your previous incarnation. That's karma, man. Karma.

Also i am a bit not sure about what you think should happen. So God will break your legs in hell because you have been a bad creature in life - is that ok? I have been told since i am not Christian i am bound for hell - billions of us - tossed into gas chambers in hell like Jews under Hitler - is that cold-blooded indifference in your opinion? And we have not committed any crimes at all! Even the Buddha gets tossed into hell whereas a pedophile christian gets heaven. Are those the morals that you subscribe to?

 

[Hermit]

The concept of reincarnation engenders a cold-blooded indifference to the lot of others. Had a leg amputated after you were run over by a bus? You must have been a bad creature in your previous incarnation. That's karma, man. Karma.

No, that's a horrible interpretation of Karma - the word Karma means Work - that's it! It's not a metaphysical payback system. For eg you work hard, study, sacrifice you get good grades, don't and you get bad grades - that's all Karma means

Your interpretation makes God a cruel accountant - a master who will punish his slaves for mistakes - that's quite natural because western religions view God as a Master - "we must get down on our knees and beg for his forgiveness, master will forgive and give us the easy good life in heaven" - that is the thought process and that is where these ideas are coming from

Hindus don't view God as a Master - more a parent or a Teacher - we are here to learn - punishment does not help us do that

There is also the other view - Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That - ie you become what you are - if you are a cruel inhuman person, an animal - maybe that life will suit you better and such people become animals in their next life. Or those bound for Heaven - they want the easy good life of doing nothing, zero worries or responsibilities - they will come back as a lower life form - maybe a Tree - sit around doing nothing - maybe sleep all day

But to think that God sits up there and we are some puppets that are being manipulated from second to second is not what Hinduism teaches

Okay, forget the mention of karma and replace it with the bit I bolded for an explanation of the cold-blooded indifference to the lot of others. No, it's not a trait exclusive to the Hindu conception of reincarnation. There is a well known proverb among Christians, for instance: As you make your bed, so you must lie upon it. That trait seems more pronounced and prevalent among adherents of Hinduism, though. Admittedly, I have not personally encountered many, but this struck me about all of those I did meet. The indifference kept coming out in casual comments about situations people found themselves in during conversations.

Also i am a bit not sure about what you think should happen.

As a determinist I don't particularly go for blaming (or praising) people for their behaviour, but I do like the idea of compassion.

So God will break your legs in hell because you have been a bad creature in life - is that ok? I have been told since i am not Christian i am bound for hell - billions of us - tossed into gas chambers in hell like Jews under Hitler - is that cold-blooded indifference in your opinion? And we have not committed any crimes at all! Even the Buddha gets tossed into hell whereas a pedophile christian gets heaven. Are those the morals that you subscribe to?

Good questions to put to a Christian. I am an atheist.

 

[Jobar]

From George H. Smith's 1979 work, Atheism: The Case Against God-

In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be "saved" from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy man living in a natural, intelligible universe. If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on Earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, man is sinful and helpless in the fact of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of Hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.
...
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that Christianity has a vested interest in human misery. This central theme manifests itself again and again in Christian doctrines, and most Christian doctrines are unintelligible unless viewed in this context. The spectacular success of Christianity has been a topic of heated debate among scholars, and it is certainly true that definite historical factors influenced that success. I suggest, however, that much of Christianity's success can be accounted for in another way: Christianity, perhaps more than any religion before or since, capitalized on human suffering; and it was enormously successful in insuring its own existence through the perpetuation of human suffering.

I've often spoken of how Christianity uses the carrot of heaven, and the stick of hell, to extend its own authority and existence. Hell is the threat of suffering extended infinitely, and we see how detailed and voluminous are the tales of the agonies which souls will experience there; Dante's Inferno is only the best known. (I find it interesting how relatively few are the stories of souls in heaven; Dante's Paradisio is almost unread, and quite boring.)

I think that Hinduism and Buddhism provide better attempts to explain suffering, and teach how to deal with it, instead of threatening people with it.

Ramaraksha, most atheists would say that death is the end of our consciousness; after death the individual becomes as we were before we were born, nothing. Do you have any thoughts on whether this is equivalent to the concept of nirvana?

 

[Ramaraksha]

Okay, forget the mention of karma and replace it with the bit I bolded for an explanation of the cold-blooded indifference to the lot of others. Admittedly, I have not personally encountered many, but this struck me about all of those I did meet. The indifference kept coming out in casual comments about situations people found themselves in during conversations.

Good questions to put to a Christian. I am an atheist.

Again not sure where you are getting this cold-blooded indifference to the lot of others from? Basically the idea is that you do wrong things, bad things will happen to you. Drive too fast on wet & slick roads - what do you think will happen? Don't study - what do you think will happen when test time comes around? Drink a lot, smoke a lot - again what do you think will happen to your health? That's all this idea is saying - it's a problem when we get emotional and let emotions rule our views

Lastly, these ideas were born thousands of years ago - they had nothing to do with Indian people do or think today. Just as the horrors going on in Myanmar and Sri Lanka - Buddhists attacking muslims and Hindus have nothing to do with the Buddha's teachings

Reincarnation means Life - basically the idea is saying there is no magic land in the sky - THIS IS ALL THERE IS! There is no Heaven - this is the only world there is - Reincarnation came about as an opposite to the idea that we can run away from life and get to enjoy the easy good life elsewhere

Heaven is a metaphor for the womb - inside the womb, we were kept warm, content, happy, food when we are ready, we were in bliss but then suddenly we get kicked out of this Eden, we feel pain for the first time, but that is how we know life starts. That is what Reincarnation is saying, you can't stay in the womb forever, yes life is harsh, yes it is hard to hear that there is no Santa, but we must grow up

 

[Ramaraksha]

From George H. Smith's 1979 work, Atheism: The Case Against God-
I think that Hinduism and Buddhism provide better attempts to explain suffering, and teach how to deal with it, instead of threatening people with it.

Ramaraksha, most atheists would say that death is the end of our consciousness; after death the individual becomes as we were before we were born, nothing. Do you have any thoughts on whether this is equivalent to the concept of nirvana?

Nirvana is not Hinduism - We have Moksha. As we know the Buddha did not believe in Reincarnation, he taught Rebirth. He did not believe in a soul, so once you die there is no You.

But the Buddha got most of his ideas from Hinduism - basically Moksha or Nirvana is what Nietzsche says is Ubermensch - that we progress from life to life until we become Gods - now don't take this God word literally - it means just as Nietzsche said - we become higher beings - as we know we have come a long way from our cave man days, what will we be like in say another 1,000 years with all the technological benefits? (I do believe that Nietzsche read Hindu texts and also got his ideas from them, wish he could have given them some credit)

One question that Christians and Muslims never answer and are never asked is why some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths while others get to live a life of hell - for eg we have our orange-haired leader - never once has he gone hungry, not even for a day, grew up in luxury, will die in luxury and then there are mothers who starved themselves to death while feeding their starving children (over 3 million indians starved to death in the early 40's in India - the British did not care to prevent it, even though they could have. Starvation deaths were common in India under British rule - the Irish could tell us something about that). Lots of tragedies we know happen every day - we have school shootings - young kids with so many hopes and dreams - now gone forever! Why?

Why do some people live the easy good life while others do not? That is the question that ancient hindus grappled with. The Brahmins used this question to benefit themselves - you are born a lower-caste because you did something wrong in the past life and if were a good person, you were born a Brahmin. They limited education to themselves, basically writing the books that taught this idea

Of course Christians and Muslims never go there - never wonder why because they don't have an answer

But to me the answer is clear - we are reborn over and over and in some lives we have it good and in others, not so good, it is just a luck of the draw. There is no God who has has hooked up as puppets doing good and bad things to us. At any point we can end this - we don't want to be reborn, we won't be, we wish to, we will be. If we don't care for the harsh human life, then maybe a lower life form will suit us better

 

[abaddon]

Ramaraksha,

You can convey the same basic message that there is no magic land or oceanic bliss (the womb) to escape to, without ever distracting from that message by blathering about reincarnation. That'd be a much more effective strategy for a war of ideas, because you remove the red herring from your own argument.

 

[abaddon]

Ramaraksha's post was addressed to Jobar and I don't mean to interfere with their exchange. But just a couple quick(ish) notes about Nietzsche and Buddhism, which I've read some about...

[Buddha] did not believe in a soul, so once you die there is no You.

And while you are alive there is no You. Not in the conventional sense.

basically Moksha or Nirvana is what Nietzsche says is Ubermensch - that we progress from life to life until we become Gods

No. That's not true of either Buddhism or Nietszche.

Nietzsche was on about amor fati -- the love of your life as it is. You overcome resentment and nihilism and affirm life by overcoming your resentments and saying Yes to life. The eternal recurrence is just a challenge: If you should have to live your life as it is now over and over, does that fill you with dismay? Or do you say "yes! this life again and again, I can do that!" IOW, it's a challenge to love your life.

Buddhism is similar. Some Buddhists think there's a long progression of effort to attain equanimity (being at peace with how life is). But others say you're Buddha already. Which means you're everything you need to be right now, you're perfect as you are. It's just some delusory conceptions (like the conventional sense of self... the clingy Ego) prevents the realization of that completeness and causes dissatisfaction (or "suffering", dukkha). And so if we're "buddhas" now, it doesn't take lifetimes to know it... You just have to emancipate, now, from the delusory conventional notions that cause dissatisfaction.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Ramaraksha,
You can convey the same basic message that there is no magic land or oceanic bliss (the womb) to escape to, without ever distracting from that message by blathering about reincarnation. That'd be a much more effective strategy for a war of ideas, because you remove the red herring from your own argument.

Again, fight ideas with ideas - as long as billions of people believe in Heaven, we need other ideas beside "it doesn't exist" bit. And not sure what the red herring is all about - can you please amplify?

 

[Ramaraksha]

No. That's not true of either Buddhism or Nietszche.
Nietzsche was on about amor fati -- the love of your life as it is. You overcome resentment and nihilism and affirm life by overcoming your resentments and saying Yes to life. The eternal recurrence is just a challenge: If you should have to live your life as it is now over and over, does that fill you with dismay? Or do you say "yes! this life again and again, I can do that!" IOW, it's a challenge to love your life.
Buddhism is similar. Some Buddhists think there's a long progression of effort to attain equanimity (being at peace with how life is). But others say you're Buddha already. Which means you're everything you need to be right now, you're perfect as you are. It's just some delusory conceptions (like the conventional sense of self... the clingy Ego) prevents the realization of that completeness and causes dissatisfaction (or "suffering", dukkha). And so if we're "buddhas" now, it doesn't take lifetimes to know it... You just have to emancipate, now, from the delusory conventional notions that cause dissatisfaction.

Buddhism is so far apart from what Nietzsche taught - there are quotes from Nietzsche about wanting life over and over - that is Reincarnation. But you misunderstand Reincarnation while using the exact same terminology - you say Nietzsche says "Life over and over again!" and you say it is about loving life but when it comes to Reincarnation you completely turn it around! They are both saying the same thing! These are but ideas - Heaven is the idea that there is a magic land in the sky, a Sugar Daddy who will make you happy, whereas Reincarnation says this is all there is!

We have all been Reincarnated in the same life! Once i was a child, a baby constantly needing my mommy, then a kid, then an obnoxious teenager, then a young man with big dreams, and now approaching old age - all those people were me and yet not me. I have been reincarnated over and over

Understand the concepts - don't take things so literally. If you can understand and interpret what Nietzsche says, you can do the same with Hindu concepts

The main difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is that the Buddha taught a way OUT of pain and suffering whereas Hinduism teaches a way IN and that is what Nietzsche also agrees with. What the Buddha said is nothing remarkable - drop desires, you will be happy - well, but of course

Student A wants top grades - he is up late, studying, worrying. Student B doesn't care, he is fast asleep, snoring away or maybe taking a late night movie - which one would you say is happy? Student B but of course. What Hinduism is teaching and Nietzsche as well is the joy of achievement - to achieve anything in life one must pay the price, good things are not going to fall on top of our heads (that is Heaven - some magic being will GIVE us the good life), whereas Hinduism is saying the good life is EARNED, never given. Moksha is earned, it cannot be begged for nor given

Indians chose Hinduism over Buddhism, which is why it disappeared from India

 

[abaddon]

Ramaraksha,
You can convey the same basic message that there is no magic land or oceanic bliss (the womb) to escape to, without ever distracting from that message by blathering about reincarnation. That'd be a much more effective strategy for a war of ideas, because you remove the red herring from your own argument.

Again, fight ideas with ideas - as long as billions of people believe in Heaven, we need other ideas beside "it doesn't exist" bit. And not sure what the red herring is all about - can you please amplify?

Is there enough bit of a mind in your head to notice how reincarnation distracts from your point about "this is all there is" here in this discussion board?

 

[abaddon]

you say Nietzsche says "Life over and over again!" and you say it is about loving life but when it comes to Reincarnation you completely turn it around!

No. Try to understand the concept and stop misinterpreting everything. Nietzsche's challenge is, if you faced the prospect of having to endure your present life, in all the squalid details, again and again, how does that make you feel? Do you balk and say "No, I would rather have a different life in my next 'incarnation' whether in heaven or any other kind of after-death experience (like reincarnation back into this world)"? Or do you say "Yes, I like this life so well, that it's perfectly fine even with all the mistakes and suffering"?

The "again and again" is distinctly NOT the point of this challenge to one's values. It's included to get a person thinking about this particular life and one's experience of it, before death happens.