 |
Karl Loren |
A) Reincarnation in world religions; B) Past-life recall as proof for reincarnation; C) Reincarnation and cosmic justice; D) Reincarnation and Christianity.
The concept of reincarnation seems to offer one of the most attractive explanations of man’s origin and destiny. There is an increasing interest in this topic today, sustained especially by books and magazines, TV broadcasts, movies and conferences. Most of them are related to the world of esoterical wisdom and occult phenomena. Reincarnation is a hot topic also on the Internet, as you may have already noticed. Not only adherents of Eastern religions or New Age spirituality accept it currently, but also many who don’t share such esoteric interests and convictions.
Reincarnation seems to give hope for continuing one’s existence in further lives and thus having a better chance to attain liberation. This is a source of great comfort, especially for those who seek liberation on the exclusive basis of their inner resources. On the other hand, reincarnation is a way of rejecting the Christian teaching of the soul’s final judgment by a holy God, with the possible result of being eternally condemned to suffer in hell. Another major reason for accepting reincarnation by so many people today is the fact that it allegedly explains the differences that exist between people. Some are healthy, others are tormented their whole life by physical handicaps. Some are rich, others at the brink of starvation. Some have success without being religious; others are constant losers, despite their religious dedication. Eastern religions explain these differences as a result of previous lives, good or bad, which bear their fruits into the present one through the action of karma. Therefore reincarnation seems to be a perfect way of punishing or rewarding one’s deeds, without the need of accepting a personal God as Ultimate Reality.
Given the overwhelming impact this ideology can have in the life and beliefs of any person, let us analyze the following major topics:
A) Reincarnation in world religions;
B) Past-life recall as proof for reincarnation;
C) Reincarnation and cosmic justice;
D) Reincarnation and Christianity.
The reincarnation of an entity defined as the core of human existence (atman or purusha) following a cycle that implies many lives and bodies, is not such an old concept as it is pretended today. It is neither a common element for most of the oldest known religions, nor does its origin belong to an immemorial past.
The classic form of the reincarnation doctrine was formulated in India, but certainly not earlier than the 9th century BC, when the Brahmana writings were composed. After the Upanishads (7th to 5th century BC) clearly defined the concept, it was adopted by the other important Eastern religions which originated in India, Buddhism and Jainism. Due to the spreading of Buddhism, reincarnation was later adapted in Chinese Taoism, but not earlier than the 3rd century BC.
The ancient religions of the Mediterranean world developed quite different kinds of reincarnationist beliefs. For instance, Greek Platonism stated the pre-existence of the soul in a celestial world and its fall into a human body due to sin. In order to be liberated from its bondage and return to a state of pure being, the soul needs to be purified through reincarnation. In stating these beliefs Plato was strongly influenced by the earlier philosophical schools of Orphism and Pythagoreanism. The first important Greek philosophical system that adopted a similar view on reincarnation to Hinduism was Neo-Platonism, born in the 3rd century AD, under certain Eastern influences.
In the case of ancient Egypt, The Egyptian Book of the Dead describes
the travel of the soul into a next world without coming back to earth. As it is
well known, the ancient Egyptians embalmed the dead in order that the body might
be preserved and accompany the soul into that world. This rather suggests their
belief in resurrection than in reincarnation. Likewise, in many cases of ancient
tribal religions that are credited today with holding to reincarnation, it is
rather a belief in the pre-existence of the soul before birth or its independent
survival after death that is taught. This has no connection with the classic
idea of transmigration from one physical body to another, according to the
demands of an impersonal law such as karma.
The origin of samsara has to be searched for in Hinduism and its
classic writings. It cannot have appeared earlier than the 9th century BC
because the Vedic hymns, the most ancient writings of Hinduism, do not mention
it, proving that reincarnation wasn’t stated yet at the time of their recording
(13th to 10th century BC). Let us therefore analyze the development of the
concept of immortality in the major Hindu writings, beginning with the Vedas and
the Brahmanas.
At the time the Vedic hymns were written, the belief was that man continues to exist after death as a whole person. Between man and gods was stated an absolute distinction, as in all other polytheistic religions of the world. The concept of an impersonal fusion with the source of all existence, as later stated in the Upanishads, was far away. Here are some arguments for this thesis that result from the exegesis of the funeral ritual:
1. As was the case in other ancient religions (for instance those of Egypt and Mesopotamia), the deceased was buried with food and clothing necessary in the afterlife. More than that, the belief of ancient Aryans in the preservation of personal identity after death led them to incinerate the dead husband together with his (living) wife and bow so that they could accompany him in the afterlife. In some parts of India this ritual was performed until the British colonization.
2. Similar to the tradition of ancient Chinese religion, the departed relatives constituted a holy hierarchy. The last one deceased was commemorated individually for a year after his departure and then included in the mortuary offerings of the monthly shraddha ritual (Rig Veda 10,15,1-11). This ritual was necessary because the dead could influence negatively or positively the life of the living (Rig Veda 10,15,6).
3. According to Vedic anthropology, the components of human nature are the physical body, ashu and manas. Ashu represents the vital principle (different from personal attributes), and manas the sum of psycho-mental faculties (mind, feeling and will). The belief in the preservation of the three components after death is proved by the fact that the family addressed the departed relative in the burial ritual as a unitary person: "May nothing of your manas, nothing of the ashu, nothing of the limbs, nothing of your vital fluid, nothing of your body here by any means be lost" (Atharva Veda 18,2,24).
Yama, the god of death (mentioned in old Buddhist and Taoist scriptures too) was sovereign over the souls of the dead and also the one who received the offerings of the family for the benefit of the departed. In the Rig Veda it is said about him: "Yama was the first to find us our abode, a place that can never be taken away, where our ancient Fathers have departed; all who are born go there by that path, treading their own" (Rig Veda 10,14,2). Divine justice was provided by the gods Yama, Soma and Indra, not by an impersonal law such as karma. One of their attributes was to cast the wicked into an eternal dark prison out of which they can never escape (Rig Veda 7,104,3-17).
The premise for reaping the reward of one’s life in a new earthly existence
(instead of the heavenly afterlife) appeared in the Brahmana writings (9th
century BC). They stated a limited heavenly immortality, depending on the deeds
and the quality of the sacrifices performed during life. After reaping the
reward for them, man has to face a second death in the heavenly realm (punarmrityu)
and therefore return to an earthly existence. The proper antidote against this
situation came to be considered esoteric knowledge, attainable only during one’s
earthly existence.
The Upanishads were the first writings to move the place of one’s "second death" from the heavenly realm to this earthly world, considering its proper solution the knowledge of the atman-Brahman identity.
Ignorance of one’s true self (atman or purusha) launches karma into action, the law of cause and effect in Eastern spirituality. Its first clear formulation can be found in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4,4,5): "According as one acts, according as one behaves, so does he become.The doer of good becomes good. The doer of evil becomes evil. One becomes virtuous by virtuous action, bad by bad action." Reincarnation (samsara) is the practical way in which one reaps the fruits of his deeds. Therefore, the self is forced to enter a new material existence until all karmic debt is paid: "By means of thought, touch, sight and passions and by the abundance of food and drink there are birth and development of the (embodied) self. According to his deeds, the embodied self assumes successively various forms in various conditions" (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 5,11).
There can be observed a fundamental mutation in the meaning of afterlife in
comparison with the Vedic perspective. Abandoning the desire to have communion
with the gods (Agni, Indra, etc.), attained as a result of bringing good
sacrifices, the Upanishads came to consider man’s final destiny to be the
impersonal fusion atman-Brahman, attained exclusively by esoteric
knowledge. In this new context, karma and reincarnation are key elements that
will mark from now on all particular developments in Hinduism.
In the Bhagavad Gita, which is a part of the Mahabharata, reincarnation is clearly stated as a natural process of life that has to be followed by any mortal. Krishna says:
Just as the self advances through childhood, youth and old age in its physical body, so it advances to another body after death. The wise person is not confused by this change called death (2,13). Just as the body casts off worn out clothes and puts on new ones, so the infinite, immortal self casts off worn out bodies and enters into new ones (2,22).
In the Puranas the speculation on this subject is more substantial and therefore specific destinies are figured for each kind of "sin" one performs:
The murderer of a brahmin becomes consumptive, the killer of a cow becomes hump-backed and imbecile, the murderer of a virgin becomes leprous - all three born as outcastes. The slayer of a woman and the destroyer of embryos becomes a savage full of diseases; who commits illicit intercourse, a eunuch; who goes with his teacher’s wife, disease-skinned. The eater of flesh becomes very red; the drinker of intoxicants, one with discolored teeth.... Who steals food becomes a rat; who steals grain becomes a locust... perfumes, a muskrat; honey, a gadfly; flesh, a vulture; and salt, an ant.... Who commits unnatural vice becomes a village pig; who consorts with a Sudra woman becomes a bull; who is passionate becomes a lustful horse.... These and other signs and births are seen to be the karma of the embodied, made by themselves in this world. Thus the makers of bad karma, having experienced the tortures of hell, are reborn with the residues of their sins, in these stated forms (Garuda Purana 5).
Similar specific punishments are figured by The Laws of Manu (12, 54-69).
According to the Upanishads and Vedanta philosophy, the entity that reincarnates is the impersonal self (atman). Atman lacks any personal element, reason for which the use of the reflexive pronoun "self" is not quite right. Atman can be defined only through negating any personal attributes. Although it constitutes the existential substrata of man’s existence, atman cannot be the carrier of one’s "spiritual progress", because it cannot record any data produced in the illusory domain of psycho-mental existence. The spiritual progress one accumulates toward realizing the atman-Brahman identity is recorded by karma, or rather by a minimal quantity of karmic debt. According to one’s karma, at (re)birth the whole physical and mental complex man consists of is reconstructed, all that pertains to the world of illusions. At this level, the newly shaped person experiences the fruits of "his" actions from previous lives and has to do his best to stop the vicious cycle avidya-karma-samsara.
As a necessary aid in explaining the reincarnation mechanism, Vedanta adopted the concept of a subtle body (sukshma-sharira), attached to atman as long as its bondage lasts, which actually records the karmic debts and transmits them from one life to another. However, this "subtle body" cannot be a form of preserving one’s personal attributes, as it does not offer any actual data belonging to previous lives to the present conscious psycho-mental life. All this kind of data is erased, so that the facts recorded by the subtle body are a sum of hidden tendencies or impressions (samskara) imprinted by karma. They will materialize unconsciously in the life of the individual, without giving him any hint for understanding his actual condition. There is no possible form of transmitting conscious memory from one life to another, because its domain belongs to the world of illusions and dissolves at death.
In the Samkhya and Yoga darshanas, the entity that reincarnates is
purusha, an equivalent of atman. Given the absolute duality
stated between purusha and prakriti (substance), nothing that
belongs to the psycho-mental life can pass from one life to the other because it
belongs to prakriti, which has a mere illusory relation with purusha.
However, in the Yoga Sutra (2,12) is defined a similar mechanism of
transmitting the effects of karma from one life to another, as was the case in
Vedanta. The reservoir of karmas is called karmashaya. It accompanies
purusha from one life to another, representing the sum of impressions (samskara)
that could not manifest themselves during the limits of a certain life. In no
way can it be a kind of conscious memory, a sum of information that the person
could consciously use or a nucleus of personhood, because karmashaya has
nothing in common with psycho-mental abilities. This deposit of karma merely
serves as a mechanism for adjusting the effects of karma in one’s life. It
dictates in an impersonal and mechanical manner the new birth (jati), the
length of life (ayu) and the experiences that must accompany it (bhoga).
Buddhism denies the reality of a permanent self, together with all things pertaining to the phenomenal world. The appearance of human existence is generated by a mere heap of five aggregates (skandha), which suffer from constant becoming and have a functional cause-effect relation: 1) the body (material form and senses), 2) sensation (product of the senses), 3) perception (built on sensation), 4) mental activity and 5) consciousness. All five elements, as well as the whole assembly they construct, are impermanent (anitya), undergo constant transformation and have no abiding principle or self. Man usually thinks that he has a self because of consciousness. But being itself in a constant process of becoming and change, consciousness cannot be identified with a self that is supposed to be permanent. Beyond the five aggregates nothing else can be found in man.
However, something has to reincarnate, following the dictates of karma. When asked about the differences between people in the matters of life span, illnesses, wealth, etc., the Buddha taught:
Men have, O young man, deeds as their very own, they are inheritors of deeds, deeds are their matrix, deeds are their kith and kin, and deeds are their support. It is deeds that classify men into high or low status (Majjhima Nikaya 3,202).
If there is no real self, who inherits the deeds and reincarnates? Buddha answered that only karma is passing from one life to another, using the illustration of the light of a candle, which is derived from other candle without having a substance of its own. In the same manner there is rebirth without the transfer of a self from one body to another. The only link from one life to the next is of a causal nature. This is without doubt the weirdest definition of reincarnation ever stated. In the Garland Sutra (10) we read:
According to what deeds are done
Do their resulting consequences come to be;
Yet the doer has no existence:
This is the Buddha’s teaching.
The Yogachara and Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) schools of Mahayana Buddhism consider that there actually is an entity that reincarnates, namely consciousness (one of the five aggregates), thus having the same function as the atman of Vedanta. The Tibetan Book of the Dead describes in detail the alleged experiences one has in the intermediary state between two incarnations, suggesting that the deceased keeps some personal attributes. Although it is not clear what actually survives after death in this case, there is mentioned a mental body that cannot be injured by the visions experienced by the deceased:
When it happens that such a vision arises, do not be afraid! Do not feel terror! You have a mental body made of instincts; even if it is killed or dismembered, it cannot die! Since in fact you are a natural form of voidness, anger at being injured is unnecessary! The Yama Lords of Death are but arisen from the natural energy of your own awareness and really lack all substantiality. Voidness cannot injure voidness! (Tibetan Book of the Dead, 12)
Whatever the condition of the deceased after death might be, any hypothetical personal nucleus vanishes right before birth, so there can be no psycho-mental element transmitted from one life to another. The newborn person doesn’t remember anything from previous lives or trips into the realm of intermediary state (bardo).
Another contradictory element in the Buddhist theory of reincarnation is the extreme rarity of being reincarnated as a human person. The Buddha taught in the Chiggala Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 35,63):
Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water,
and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east
would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the
north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And
suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every
one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming
to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with
a single hole?
It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to
the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke
with a single hole.
It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's
likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy and rightly
self-awakened, arises in the world.
If one would try to calculate the probability of obtaining the human state according to this text, and consider the surface of "this great earth" as being just the surface of India, the odds would be one chance in a time span in years of 5 followed by 16 zeros. This is 5 million times the age of the universe.
Reincarnation is a teaching hard to find in the aphorisms of the Tao-te Ching (6th century BC), so it must have appeared later in Taoism. Although it is not specified what reincarnates, something has to pass from one life to another. An important scripture of Taoism, the Chuang Tzu (4th century BC), states:
Birth is not a beginning; death is not an end. There is existence
without limitation; there is continuity without a starting point.
Existence without limitation is space. Continuity without a starting point
is time. There is birth, there is death, there is issuing forth, there is
entering in. That through which one passes in and out without seeing its form,
that is the Portal of God (Chuang Tzu 23).
Once the Eastern concept of reincarnation arrived in Europe, its meaning changed. During the Middle Ages it was a doctrine reserved for the initiates of some occult traditions (Hermetism, Catharism, etc.), who have taken it over from Neo-Platonism. A larger acceptance of reincarnation was promoted in the Western world only beginning with the last century, by the efforts of Theosophy, and later Anthroposophy. Their intense ministry, combined with that of many Eastern gurus, and especially the efforts of the New Age movement, determined a wide acceptance of reincarnation in our society today, so that this concept became one of the most fascinating doctrines in explaining the origin and meaning of life.
However, its modern version is substantially different from what Eastern religions stated. Far from being a torment out of which man has to escape by any price through abolishing personhood, New Age thinking considers reincarnation as an eternal progression of the soul toward higher levels of spiritual existence. Influenced by the Christian cultural context but totally opposing Eastern classic ideology, many consider today that the entity that reincarnates is our soul, which preserves the attributes of personhood from one life to another. This compromise obviously emerged from the desire to adopt the reincarnation doctrine to Western thought. The concept of an impersonal atman reincarnating was too abstract to be easily accepted, so Westerners needed a milder version of this doctrine. Although this tendency proves the soul’s yearning for a personal destiny, it doesn’t bear too much resemblance to classical Eastern spirituality, which rejects it as totally perverted.
The above information about the meaning of reincarnation in the Eastern
religions and the nature of the entity which is reincarnating will be helpful in
examining the modern proofs for it, which are so popular today. While analyzing
them, we need to remember that according to the Eastern concept of reincarnation
there cannot be any personal element that could wander from one life to the
next.
Past-life recall as proof for reincarnation
Reincarnation and cosmic justice
Reincarnation and Christianity
Today’s religious syncretism not only accepts reincarnation as one of its
basic doctrines but also tries to prove that it can be found in the Bible and in
the history of the Church. We will therefore analyze the basic texts in the
Bible which are claimed to imply reincarnation, examine the position of some
important Church fathers who were suspected of having accepted it, emphasize the
basic antagonism of this doctrine with Christian teaching, and then find a
proper explanation for the past life recall experiences mentioned earlier, an
explanation that should be compatible with Christian thought.
The most "convincing" texts of this kind are the following:
1) Matthew 11,14 and 17,12-13, concerning the
identity of John the Baptist;
2) John 9,2, "Who sinned, this man or his parents,
that he was born blind?";
3) John 3,3, "No one can see the kingdom of God
unless he is born again";
4) James 3,6, "the wheel of nature";
5) Galatians 6,7, "A man reaps what he sows".
6) Matthew 26,52, ”all who draw the sword will die
by the sword”.
7) Revelation 13,10, ”If anyone is to go into
captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword,
with the sword he will be killed.”
1. The first text concerns the identity of John the Baptist, supposed to be the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah. In Matthew 11,14 Jesus says: "And if you are willing to accept it, he (John the Baptist) is the Elijah who was to come." In the same Gospel, while answering the apostles about the coming of Elijah, Jesus told them: "But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." The commentary adds: "Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist." (Matthew 17,12-13; see also Mark 9,12-13)
At first sight, it may seem that these verses imply the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah as John the Baptist. The prophecy of the return of Elijah was stated in the last verses of the Old Testament, in the book of the prophet Malachi (3,1; 4,5-6): "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes." Right before this prophecy was fulfilled, through the birth of John the Baptist, an angel announced to his father Zechariah: "And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous-- to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1,17). What could be the meaning of the words "in the spirit and power of Elijah"? According to other Biblical passages that refer to Elijah and John the Baptist, they do not teach reincarnation.
At the time when John the Baptist began his public preaching, the priests in
Jerusalem asked him about his identity. They asked: "Are you Elijah?" (John
1,21) In such circumstances a true "guru" wouldn’t have hesitated to state his
position in the succession of spiritual masters (the guru parampara) of
the tradition he is representing. However, John the Baptist answered simply: "I
am not." His negation suggests another meaning to the words quoted from
Matthew 11,14 and 17,12-13. John the Baptist was rather a kind of Elijah, a
prophet who had to repeat the mission of Elijah in a similar context. The same
as Elijah did, John the Baptist had to suffer persecution from the royal house
of Israel and acted in the context of the spiritual degeneration of the Jewish
nation, with the mission of bringing the people back to the right worship of
God. John the Baptist had the same spiritual mission as the prophet Elijah, but
not the same soul or self. For this reason the expression "in the spirit and
power of Elijah" should not be interpreted as reincarnation of a person, but as
a necessary repetition of a well-known episode in the history of Israel. Another
Biblical text that contradicts the reincarnation theory in this case is the
story of Elijah’s departure from this world. Elijah didn’t die in the proper
sense of the word, but "went up to heaven in a whirlwind" (2 Kings 2,11).
According to the classic theory of reincarnation, a person has to die physically
first in order that his self may be reincarnated in another body. In the case of
Elijah this didn’t happen. So it must be considered an exception to both the
natural process of death, and to the rule of reincarnation. Finally, the
experience of the three apostles at the Mount of Transfiguration has to be
remembered (Matthew 17,1-8, Mark 9,2-8; Luke 9,28-36), when
Elijah was identified by the apostles without being confused with John the
Baptist.
2. The next disputed text is the introduction to the healing of the man born blind in John 9,2. Considering the apostles' question: "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?", it is obvious that the first option (the man was born blind because of his sin) implies that he could sin only in a previous life. According to the classic theory of reincarnation, he might have been a cruel dictator who got the just reward for his bad deeds.
However, the apostles' question about the possibility of having sinned before birth should not necessarily be judged as indicating an existing belief in reincarnation at that time in Israel. It rather confirms that some religious factions believed that the fetus can sin in his mother womb. If Jesus had considered reincarnation to be true, surely He would have used this opportunity - as was His custom - to explain to them the law of karma and reincarnation, as an immediate application to that man’s situation. Jesus never missed such occasions to instruct his disciples on spiritual matters, and reincarnation would have been a crucial doctrine for them to understand.
Nevertheless, by the answer Jesus gave to them, He rejected both options
suggested by the apostles. Both the idea of sinning before birth and the
punishment for the parents' sins were wrong. Jesus said: "Neither this man nor
his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed
in his life" (John 9,3). "The work of God" is described in the next
verses, when Jesus healed the blind man as a proof of His divinity (v. 39).
3. In the Gospel According to John Jesus said to Nicodemus: "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" (John 3,3). Out of its context, this verse seems to suggest that reincarnation is the only possibility for attaining spiritual perfection and admission into the "kingdom of God". Nicodemus’ following question indicates that he understood by these words a kind of physical rebirth in this life, and not classic reincarnation: "How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" (v. 4). Jesus rejected the idea of physical rebirth and explained man’s need for spiritual rebirth, during this life, in order to be admitted into God’s kingdom in the afterlife.
Jesus further explained the meaning of His words by referring to a well-known
episode in Israel’s history: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert,
so the Son of Man must be lifted up" (John 3,14). That episode occurred
while the Israelites were travelling in the wilderness toward the Promised Land
under the command of Moses (see Numbers 21,4-9). They spoke against God
and against Moses, and then God punished them by sending poisonous snakes
against them. Grasping the gravity of the situation, they recognized their sin
and asked for a saving solution. God’s solution was that Moses had to make a
bronze copy of such a snake and put it up on a pole. Those who had been bitten
by a snake had to look at this bronze snake, believing that this symbol
represented their salvation, and were healed. Coming back to the link Jesus made
between that episode and His teaching, He said: "Just as Moses lifted up the
snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who
believes in him may have eternal life" (John 3,14-15). In other words, as
Moses lifted up the bronze snake 1400 years earlier, in the same way was He to
be lifted up on the cross, in order to be the only solution, the only antidote
to the deadly bite of sin. As the Jews had to believe that the bronze snake was
their salvation from death, the same way had Nicodemus, his generation and the
entire world to believe that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is the perfect
solution provided by God for the sins of the world. Therefore the kind of
rebirth Jesus was teaching (as well as Paul – see Titus 3,5) is not the
Eastern concept of reincarnation but a spiritual rebirth that any human can
experience in this life.
4. A fourth text interpreted as indicative for reincarnation is found in the
Epistle of James 3,6, where some translations (such as the American
Standard Version) mention "the wheel of nature" which seems to resemble the
cycle of endless reincarnation stated by the Eastern religions. However, in this
context the reference is made to the control of speech in order not to sin. The
ASV translation states: "And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among
our members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire
the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell." The tongue out of control is
compared with a fire that affects all aspects of existence, thought and deed, in
a vicious cycle. This means that sinful speech is at the origin of many other
sins, which are consequently generated, and conduct man to hell. The NIV
translation is clearer at this point: "The tongue also is a fire, a world of
evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole
course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell."
5. A classic example of suggesting karma and samsara in the Bible is
often claimed to be represented by the words of the Apostle Paul in Galatians:
"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows" (Galatians
6,7). This "sowing and reaping" process would allegedly represent someone’s acts
and their consequences as dictated by karma in further lives. However, the very
next verse here indicates that the point here is judging the effects of our
deeds from the perspective of eternal life, as stated in the Bible, without a
further earthly existence being involved: "The one who sows to please his sinful
nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the
Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life" (6,8; see also the entire
chapter). "Reaping destruction" means eternal separation from God in hell, while
"eternal life" represents eternal communion with God in heaven. In their given
context, these verses cannot suggest the reincarnation of the soul after death.
According to Christianity, the supreme judge of our deeds is God, and not
impersonal karma.
6. After Peter had cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant in his attempt to prevent Jesus’ arrest in Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him by saying: "All who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26,52). Could this be the justice of karma in action?
All four gospels give account of Jesus’ rebuke to Peter’s initiative.
Although heroic, it went against God’s plan ("How then would the Scriptures be
fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" – verse 54). Peter was in this
case sinning and, according to the well-known Old Testament law of sin
retribution, the sinner must be punished consistently ("Whoever sheds the blood
of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made
man" - Genesis 9,6; see also Exodus 21,23-25; Leviticus
24,19-20; Deuteronomy 19,21). However, throughout the Old Testament this
law was referring solely to one’s present physical life, by no means to future
lives. Otherwise Jesus’ words would lead to an absurd implication. If He meant
that killing someone in this life with a sword will require that the doer will
be killed at his turn with a sword in a future life, then His crucifixion (which
followed soon after) must have been a punishment for His sins done in previous
lives and not a solution for other people’s sins as He claimed.
7. "If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed" (Revelation 13,10). This verse belongs to a prophecy that speaks about the end times, when Satan and his subjects will have temporary power on earth. Adherents of reincarnation must be aware that it is a quotation from the Old Testament: "And if they ask you, 'Where shall we go?' tell them, 'This is what the LORD says: "'Those destined for death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for starvation, to starvation; those for captivity, to captivity'" (Jeremiah 15,2). This sentence was written by Jeremiah just before the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile (586 BC) and expresses God’s punishment of the sinful Jewish nation at that time, which had rejected Him. It is not the impersonal law of karma here but the will of the personal creator God. He chooses how to punish those who have rejected Him. (See also Jeremiah 43,11, which uses the same words for announcing the punishment of Egypt for its sins.) The author of Revelation used this quotation for assuring those involved in the events to come that God will do justice again, as He did in the ancient times. Therefore they should act in "patient endurance and faithfulness" as Revelation 13,10 adds.
*
As it can be observed, in all situations where "Biblical proofs" for
reincarnation are mentioned, the context is always ignored. Other passages used
as indications of reincarnation mean, in fact, the existence of Christ prior to
His human birth (John 8,58), the continuity of the souls' existence after
death (John 5,28-29; Luke 16,22-23; 2 Corinthians 5,1), or
the spiritual rebirth of believers in their present life (Titus 3,5; 1
Peter 1,23), without giving any plausible indication for reincarnation.
Some people hold that the Bible contained many passages teaching reincarnation in an alleged initial form, but they were erased and forbidden by the clergy at the fifth ecumenical council, held in Constantinople in the year 533 AD. The reason for this would have been the spiritual immaturity of the Christians, who could not grasp the doctrine at that time, or the desire of the clergy to manipulate the masses. However, there is no proof that such "purification" of the Biblical text has ever occurred. The existing manuscripts, many of them older than AD 533, do not show differences from the text we use today. There are enough reasons to accept that the New Testament was not written later than the first century AD. In order to get more information on the accuracy of the present text of the Bible use the following sites:
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts, by Peter van Minnen
Textual Criticism and
Manuscript Interpretation
The Gospels As Historical
Sources For Jesus, The Founder Of Christianity, by Prof. R. T. France
At the same time, if the clergy had, as alleged, decided to erase from the Bible the "compromising" passages about reincarnation, why did they keep the ones mentioned above (concerning the identity of John the Baptist, etc.)? On the other hand, it is obvious that there are many texts in the Bible that clearly contradict the idea of reincarnation, explicitly or implicitly. (See for instance 2 Samuel 12,23; 14,14, Job 7,9-10, Psalm 78,39, Matthew 25,31-46, Luke 23,39-43, Acts 17,31, 2 Corinthians 5,1;4;8, Revelation 20,11-15.) Here is one verse in the New Testament which contradicts reincarnation as clearly as possible:
Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him (Hebrews 9,27-28).
The Christian teaching that we live only once is a fact beyond doubt, being
as true as the fact that Jesus had to die only once for our sins. In other
words, the unique historical act of Jesus’ crucifixion and the fact that we live
only once are equally true and cannot be separated. This text cannot possibly be
interpreted otherwise. The judgment that follows death is obviously not the
judgment of the impersonal karma, but that of the personal almighty God, after
which man either enters an eternal personal relation with Him in heaven, or an
eternal separation from Him in hell.
Early Christianity spread in a world dominated by Greek philosophy. Many important figures of the early church had this spiritual background when they were converted. When addressing their world with the Christian message, they had to do it without any syncretistic compromise to Greek philosophy.
To what extent could they have been influenced by the doctrine of
reincarnation? In order to answer this, we first have to understand what was
actually taught about reincarnation at that time.
The dominant form of reincarnation known by ancient Greek philosophy during the first three Christian centuries belongs to Platonism. Unlike the Eastern spiritual masters, Plato taught that human souls existed since eternity in a perfect celestial world as intelligent and personal beings. They were not manifested out of a primordial impersonal essence (such as Brahman) or created by a personal god. Although the souls lived there in a pure state, somehow the divine love grew cold in them and, as a result, they fell in physical bodies to this earthly, imperfect world. Plato writes in Phaedrus about this:
But when she <the celestial soul is unable to follow, and fails to behold the truth, and through some ill-hap sinks beneath the double load of forgetfulness and vice, and her wings fall from her and she drops to the ground, then the law ordains that this soul shall at her first birth pass, not into any other animal, but only into man; and the soul which has seen most of truth shall come to the birth as a philosopher, or artist, or some musical and loving nature.
In the same work, Plato states that "ten thousand years must elapse before the soul of each one can return to the place from whence she came". Only the soul of the philosopher or of the lover can get back to its original state in less time (three thousand years). The souls that fail to aspire to perfection and live in ignorance are judged after their earthly life and then punished in "the houses of correction, which are under the earth". One lifetime is not enough to return to the original celestial state of purity. For this reason "the soul of a man may pass into the life of a beast, or from the beast return again into the man". This is the Platonist idea of reincarnation. It does not represent a voyage of an impersonal essence (as atman) toward an impersonal merging with the Absolute (Brahman), but only a temporary punishment on the way back towards a purified personal existence (the state of pure being). Between Platonism and Eastern religions there is a big difference concerning man’s identity in general and reincarnation in particular. Plato’s meaning of salvation is definitely personal, as can be understand from Phaedo:
Those also who are remarkable for having led holy lives are released from this earthly prison, and go to their pure home which is above, and dwell in the purer earth; and those who have duly purified themselves with philosophy live henceforth altogether without the body, in mansions fairer far than these, which may not be described, and of which the time would fail me to tell.
How did these ideas affect the beliefs of the early church fathers? We will
now proceed to examine the most important cases of early church fathers accused
of holding reincarnationist convictions.
The most controversial early church father concerning his alleged beliefs on reincarnation is undoubtedly Origen (185-254). Many adherents of reincarnation mention him today as a classic example proving the alleged early Christian belief in reincarnation, which is supposed to have been condemned and forbidden by the fifth ecumenical council (Constantinople, 533 AD). Although it is a fact that Origen was strongly influenced by Platonism prior to his conversion to Christianity, the claim that he believed in reincarnation is absurd.
Before using any quotes from his writings, we strongly advise you to read the file Origen and Origenism in order to get a brief description of Origen’s life, writings and teachings. This article will give you a sound perspective on what he actually taught and what was later condemned as Origenism. Then see the act of refuting Origenism by the fifth ecumenical council, The 15 Anathemas Against Origen.
As it can easily be observed, there is no clear concept of reincarnation mentioned at this council of the early church, but only the Platonist ideas concerning the pre-existence of souls, besides universalism and a wrong form of Christology, as main heresies to be rejected. Origenism has incorporated these Platonistic ideas and they were condemned at the council of Constantinople, certainly not some classic form of reincarnation, as is claimed today. For instance, the fourth anathema states:
If anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and are become and called demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema.
The condemned ideas are very close related to what Plato has stated in Phaedrus. Therefore it cannot be stated that Origenism taught a classic form of reincarnation. In fact, Origen rejected plainly this doctrine in his Commentary on Matthew (Book XIII,1), written in the last years of his life. He refutes the speculation of considering John the Baptist the reincarnation of Elijah (Matthew 11,14; 17,12-13), a text we mentioned earlier. Origen writes:
In this place it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is foreign to the church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures; for it is also in opposition to the saying that "things seen are temporal," and that "this age shall have a consummation," and also to the fulfillment of the saying, "Heaven and earth shall pass away," and "the fashion of this world passeth away," and "the heavens shall perish," and what follows.
In the same commentary, under the title "The spirit and power of Elijah" -
not the soul - were in the Baptist, Origen adds: "For, observe, he did not
say in the ‘soul’ of Elijah, in which case the doctrine of transmigration might
have some ground, but ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah.’" Origen’s whole
commentary on this text is a refutation of the reincarnation theory. Therefore
it is obvious that he cannot be considered at all an "early Christian adherent
of reincarnation".
Here are some quotations from other early church fathers concerning their opinion on reincarnation, which prove that it cannot have been one of their beliefs. Use the links in order to get a larger picture on their writings.
His opinion on reincarnation is plainly stated in the following fragment of his Dialogue with Trypho (155 AD), part one, chapter 4, where he discusses Platonism with Trypho the Jew:
The old man: "What, then, is the advantage to those who have seen [God]?
Or what has he who has seen more than he who has not seen, unless he remember
this fact, that he has seen?"
Justin: "I cannot tell," I answered.
The old man: "And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of
this spectacle?" said he.
Justin: "[According to Plato] They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain
wild beasts, and this is their punishment."
The old man: "Do they know, then, that it is for this reason they are in
such forms, and that they have committed some sin?"
Justin: "I do not think so."
The old man: "Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it
seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are
conscious of the punishment."
Justin: "No indeed."
The old man: "Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other
bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be
afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can
perceive that God exists, and that righteousness and piety are honourable, I
also quite agree with you," said he.
Justin: "You are right," I replied.
In his well-known treatise Against Heresies (Book II), Irenaeus entitled the 33rd chapter "Absurdity of the Doctrine of the Transmigration of Souls". The whole chapter criticizes this doctrine, emphasizing the futility of an alleged reincarnation devoid of any memory of past lives:
They (the souls) must of necessity retain a remembrance of those things which have been previously accomplished, that they might fill up those in which they were still deficient, and not by always hovering, without intermission, round the same pursuits, spend their labour wretchedly in vain.
In his Treatise on the Soul (see ch. 28-33), Tertullian traces the origin of reincarnationist ideas down to Pythagoras. He writes:
If, indeed, the sophist of Samos is Plato's authority for the eternally revolving migration of souls out of a constant alternation of the dead and the living states, then no doubt did the famous Pythagoras, however excellent in other respects, for the purpose of fabricating such an opinion as this, rely on a falsehood, which was not only shameful, but also hazardous.
His conclusion is that "we must likewise contend against that monstrous
presumption, that in the course of the transmigration beasts pass from human
beings, and human beings from beasts".
Finally, the master theologian of that time rejected in his turn any idea of predestination (as an impersonal law like karma might impose) in his writing Against Fate, and also the concept of reincarnation in the 28th chapter of his treatise On the Making of Man:
Those who assert that the state of souls is prior to their life in the flesh, do not seem to me to be clear from the fabulous doctrines of the heathen which they hold on the subject of successive incorporation: for if one should search carefully, he will find that their doctrine is of necessity brought down to this. They tell us that one of their sages said that he, being one and the same person, was born a man, and afterwards assumed the form of a woman, and flew about with the birds, and grew as a bush, and obtained the life of an aquatic creature; - and he who said these things of himself did not, so far as I can judge, go far from the truth: for such doctrines as this of saying that one soul passed through so many changes are really fitting for the chatter of frogs or jackdaws, or the stupidity of fishes, or the insensibility of trees.
(See also:
Reincarnation - A
Catholic Viewpoint. This well-researched article refutes the notion that the
early church believed in reincarnation, using many references to support its
argument;
What did early Christians
believe about reincarnation)
All these early church fathers lived before the fifth ecumenical council
(Constantinople, AD 533), so it cannot be true that the doctrine of
reincarnation was condemned and forbidden only as a result of that council, as a
brutal act of manipulating Christianity by the clergy. Although reincarnation
was taught by some non-Christian movements of that time, such as the Gnostics
and the Neo-Platonists, it has nothing in common with the teachings of the early
church, being always rejected as heresy by the early church fathers.
The idea of reincarnation was never accepted by Christianity because it undermines its basic tenets. First, it renders futile God’s sovereignty over creation, transforming Him into a helpless spectator of the human tragedy. Because He is sovereign and omnipotent over creation, God can punish evil and will do it perfectly well at the end of history (see Matthew 25,31-46; Revelation 20,10-15). There is no need for impersonal karma and reincarnation to play this role.
Second, believing in reincarnation may affect one’s understanding of morality and motivation for moral living. An extreme application of reincarnationist convictions could lead to adopting a detached stand to crime, theft, lying and other such social plagues. They could be considered nothing else but normal debts to be paid by their victims, originated in their previous lives. Following this reasoning, social injustice should not be punished at all in order to not complicate even more someone’s karmic debt. Therefore it is hard to believe that accepting reincarnation would transform us into better people, pursuing moral values with more conviction, as reincarnationists usually claim. The amorality proposed by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, the demand to act totally detached from what results, is the highest moral status that can be reached as the result of accepting karma and reincarnation.
Third, reincarnation represents a threat to the very essence of Christianity: the need for Christ’s redemptive sacrifice for our sins. If we are to pay for the consequences of our sins ourselves in further lives and attain salvation through our own efforts, the sacrifice of Christ becomes useless and absurd. It wouldn’t be the only way back to God, but only a stupid accident of history. In this case Christianity would be a mere form of Hindu Bhakti-Yoga.
As a result, no matter how many attempts are made today to find texts in the
Bible or in the history of the Church that would allegedly teach reincarnation,
they are all doomed to remain pure speculations.
An answer compatible with Christian theology can be found following the attempts of psychiatry to find an equivalence between evoking "personalities from past lives", by the use of hypnosis, and the multiple personality phenomenon. As was previously mentioned, there remains an unexplained element in the attempt to understand both phenomena on a purely naturalistic basis: How are the personalities distributed in their roles, or who decides which one is to act next in the show? It cannot be a random process. Using the words of Ian Wilson, "the show must have a ‘director’".
Parapsychologists tend to attribute the "director’s" role to some personal external entities, which act through the process of channeling. Hypnosis generates perfect conditions for contacting these entities as a result of abolishing normal consciousness. Instead of presenting their true identity, they could introduce themselves as personalities evoked from previous lives. Until now enough cases of external spirit interference in producing reincarnation stories have been discovered. Most people are not aware of these undesirable parasitic attachments while recollecting alleged past lives stories. Those who are aware of them accept them as precious aids in the recollection process. The only reason for rejecting the hypothesis that past life recall stories are pure fiction invented by these entities is the sheer belief in their honesty.
Now if we pass from the realm of parapsychology to Christian teaching, it appears obvious that such "external personal entities" exist, and have sufficient reason to lie us about spiritual reality. They are called demons and have developed most ingenious techniques to fool mankind about spiritual reality. The Apostle Paul states:
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Corinthians 11,14-15).
If we accept Biblical revelation, admitting that demons exist and do their best to fool us about spiritual reality, why not accept their possible involvement in producing reincarnation proofs, a concept that blatantly contradicts the essence of Christianity but at the same time fits well with their purpose? If the best conditions are created to express themselves through the person undergoing hypnosis (when self-consciousness is abolished), why should they not act? Why should they not respond to the invitation to fulfill their purpose in such a fascinating way for a credulous and ignorant public?
The experience of spirit possession represents full or partial takeover of a human by an external spiritual entity (a demon). This phenomenon is known to most religions. The parasite spirit exerts control over the behavior, mental functioning and emotions of the person involved, being capable of producing sensations and symptoms in the physical body. This picture is obviously very close to what is happening during hypnotic regression. Why then reject its explanation as spirit possession and believe in past life recall? As to the information they produce from alleged previous lives in the form of historical accounts that correspond to some extent with reality (but always are most suited to win people’s trust), if humans know them, how much more are they available for demons? If humans are capable of creating historical scenarios using the facts they know, how much more could demons prove equally creative?
In the case of "spontaneous past life recall" by children, the mechanism could be similar. At the age when they recall the alleged past lives (generally between two and five years of age) their spiritual discernment is not formed yet, which makes them vulnerable to demon manipulation. In a previous section on this phenomenon we have seen that there are cases when the alleged soul’s reincarnation overlaps with the personality of the child, presenting typical symptoms of demonic possession.
In conclusion, there is no possible way to reconcile Christianity and
reincarnation. As Ian Stevenson, a well-known researcher of past life recall
experiences, concluded in his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation
that they are only "suggesting" reincarnation and not "proving" it. From a
Christian perspective however, they rather suggest demon possession and
therefore should not be used as a method of getting information on spiritual
reality.
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month. You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below. You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered. If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed. There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit. The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription. When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active. No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-1799, the FAX: (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:25 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.