Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00558)

Bill : "Daniel, I see again that you simply will not address the
remainder of my post which I resent a second time to you. If you
could just answer my post by copying it in its entirety and going through 
addressing each section and comment individually, I would be most 
grateful. A big OK after each section would suffice if you agree with 
what I have written I think".

Yes that is right Bill and also I like to ask Daniel to do this with my 
previous postings. 

Daniel if you feel some of the evidence I quote can also be found in 
certain books then pls state name and author of these books and give 
other members of the list in that case the opportunity to buy these 
books, and see for themselve instead of you using distracting methods 
and using fake evidence as you do now instead, and join the discussion 
regarding the content of these books as far they exist.
One way or the other the arguments, contents of my postings, will 
remain valid.

Even when you come up with a piece of a book here and there that 
might say similar as something I mention, is the content I present
true or not, that is the point. You simple attempt tricks to avoid 
answerring or even address the contents of my postings.

Theosophical reincamationism is an extreme form of dualism that is 
untenable; and I think that the great majority of contemporary 
philosophers reductive materialists, identity theorists, and moderate 
dualists (including epiphenomenalists among the last group) would 
unhesitatingly agree that the extreme form of dualism is quite 
indefensible.
"As a man leaves an old garment and puts on one that is new, the
Spirit leaves his mortal body and then puts on one that is new."

Not only is reincarnation opposed to all of the most widely held 
testresults so far this century on the mind body problem, it also
follows from what has been said that it is opposed to one of the major
current theories about personal identity. This view holds that
however 
much more than a body a human being may be, personal identity 
involves bodily continuity. If we refer to this view as
"corporealism" it
should be emphasized that it is not the same as either reductive 
materialism or the identity theory. These do indeed presuppose 
corporealism, but the reverse is not true.

I do also agree with criticisms of the Christian position. It seems 
ludicrous that something as important as the creation of a soul that
is going to exist forever should be tied to such accidents as the
failure of a birth control appliance. It is safe to say that educated 
Christians and Jews do not believe in the special creation of the
soul any 
more than atheists and agnostics and that they adopt a completely 
naturalistic view about the origin of human beings their
psychological no 
less than their physical attributes.

Theosophists like other minority religious groups, especially those 
advocating positions that are widely regarded as preposterous, 
Theosophists and other reincamationists frequently present lists of 
famous men and women who shared their views. The suggestion is of 
course that the theory cannot be absurd if it has such distinguished 
backers. Pythagoras, Plato, Empedocles, Plotinus, the Cambridge 
Platonists, Goethe, Shelley, Schopenhauer, and Victor Hugo are
usually included among the philosophers and creative writers who were 
reincarnationists. These names appear quite properly on the lists 
although it should be pointed out that while Goethe and Shelley did
say things that implied they were reincarnationists, they also
frequently 
made statements implying quite a different outlook. Goethe on several 
occasions called himself a disciple of Lucretius and in his earlier
years Shelley was an ardent exponent of the atheistic materialism of
Holbach and other Encyclopedists. Most reincamationists are not aware 
that the admirable G. E. Lessing, the German playwright, philosopher, 
and champion of religious toleration, sympathized with reincarnation, 
but they do almost invariably mention the less admirable Henry Ford
and
the still less admirable George Patton, Jr.

I do not begrudge the reincarnationists their big names, but for the 
historical record I must protest their appropriation of numerous 
distinguished persons who most emphatically did not believe in 
reincarnation. Mory Bernstein, the author of "The Search for
Bridey Murphy" even , includes Julius Caesar, Spinoza, and T. H.
Huxley.

Blavatsky, is emphatic that Karma does not only "ad
just all our relationships," but also "keeps the stars on their
courses and every atom in being " as Dallas ten Broek recently posted.
All such claims are open to the criticism that, if they are
interpreted in a straightforward way, they are simply absurd and, if
they 
are interpreted in such a way as to avoid absurdity, they say
absolutely 
nothing. If it is maintained that the lawful behavior of molecules, 
mountains, or planets are instances of rewards and punish
ments, this is plainly absurd, since molecules, planets, and
mountains cannot perform good or evil deeds. If, to avoid this 
absurdity, "Karma" is taken in a broader sense in which it is simply
a 
synonym for "lawfulness" or "regularity," then calling 
the various laws of nature instances of Karma is saying nothing at
all. It 
is plain that we do not understand the regularities of the world any 
better and nothing whatever has been added to the content of any 
known law. Calling natural regularities instances of Karma is about
as 
enlightening as describing them as manifestations of the Absolute
Mind 
or as instances of the dialectical interplay of Being and Non Being.