tisdag 15 september 2009

Reincarnation and Indo-European religion

Reincarnation is actually a completely alien idea to Indo-European faiths!
Reincarnation was introduced to Hinduism from the Dravidian religions that existed on the Indian subcontinent prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans from the northwest.
For example, the early Indian civilization in the Indus Valley did NOT practice any beliefs in reincarnation. There is no reincarnation in Iranian, Celtic, Roman, Greek, Germanic, Slavic or Nordic Paganism.
Which is precisely why I am a Zoroastrian and not a Hindu, I like to keep my Indo-European religion close to its brilliant origins. Neither Dravidian nor Abrahamic influences interest me.


2009/9/15 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi

Dear Alexander
I can not accept your claim about Indo-European faiths. All the Indian faiths are based on spirituality. They believe that they should impose suffer on material body to develope/improve the spiritual soul. Fasting, not marrying, long praying, meditation, not eating meat and ... are some evidences that prove my idea and refuse yours. Another evidence is reincarnation. Upon it they believe that the soul exits a material body and enter other material body to improve..... All of the Indo_European gods and goddess are spiritual that live in spiritual world.

The mAni (manichaeus) and his faith is another evidence.

In Mehr yasht it is written that a faithful person should beat his body knout, to improve his soul.
Dear Alexander you tell that Indo -European believe in this and in that, however without any evidence or reasoning. Do you expect me to accept it blindly?
Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.

--- On Tue, 9/15/09, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: Re: [Ushta] End of discussion ordered!!! (was: AhMaz and Asha (was The Gheibis))
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 1:22 AM

Dear Mehran

Pantheism was the ideology of all Indo-European faiths.
There was no reason for them to even discuss pantheism because they could not in their wildest imagination believe in anything else but a pantheistic universe.
To discuss pantheism, you need an alternative opposite, like panentheism, to compare with.
But panentheism, the idea that God dwells outside of physical existence, did not exist until the Egyptians developed the idea. It was an alien idea to the Indo-Europeans, which is why Hinduism is Pantheist too.
But the Egytians pased the idea on to the Babylonians and the Jews which gave birth to the Abrahamic faiths.
The Indo-Europeans never took on this idea.


2009/9/14 Special Kain

Dear Mehran,

Please don't mix science with metaphysics! There is nothing to prove, simply because this is a question of (personal) taste. So either you're attracted to pantheism or the idea that there was The Almighty Creator sitting above the clouds far, far away and spying on us.
In the media Zoroastrianism is still that primitive proto-Christian faith that invented god and the devil, heaven and hell, the immortal soul and the like: monotheism at its most primitive! This is what anyone who's ever heard of Zoroastrianism thinks about our philosophy. There are translations that support this interpretation. But we're encouraged to use our own minds and draw conclusions based on our aesthetic judgment. Personally, I'm much more attracted to evolutionist and pragmatist reasoning. I don't need monotheism to make my day.
So why not focus on what we have in common? It's the ethical imperative: to maintain a constructive mentality even in a hostile environment, to adapt a co-creative attitude towards existence, to have good thoughts, speak good words and do good things in life. This is what matters the most, since we can't verify theories: we can only observe the effects of how theories are being applied. Where does this leaves us? Whether one chooses pantheism or panentheism doesn't really matter at all.

Ushta, Dino

1 kommentar:

Judy Weismonger sa...

I've thought long and hard about reincarnation. Where did such an idea come from, i.e. the epistomology of the idea maybe more important, along side any proof that may be present as to whether or not reincarnation is real or not...and thus of value.

What I do know...is that I strongly endorse "genetic memory." I believe Dawkins calls it "memes." If your DNA can remember eye and hair color, and intelligence and personality traits are inherited...than any subsequent allusions to reincarnation, may in fact be genetic memory from our DNA that may act as sort of a "tape recorder"...or at the very least...one's DNA becomes the blueprint for our neurological templates that serve to structure reaction to stimulus and behavior, which gives one an "I have been here before" feeling...resulting in beliefs in reincarnation. I simply don't know.

What I can conjecture is that if the personality is constructed by not just "memory" laid down in the old brain cells...then after life, the organized and intelligent energy that makes up one's "personality" may live on. I just don't know, but I guess I'll find out.

Other brain research shows that when people are engaged in trance/hypnotic states, shutting down part of the brain...the brain then tries to regain homeostasis and a sense of its self by either engaging in memory recall, or creating a new, internal "reality" which is used to pad out its pseudo environment, so that it can maintain a sense of emotional balance.

Those who can't do this...face extreme anxiety and fear. Some studies of a particular Buddhist sect who engaged in deep and prolonged "meditation" found that they became psychotic as a result. Ergo, if Zoroastrianism is to maintain its focus and hold on "reality" and existence, its adherants should possibly engage more in neurophysiology and physics...than play the sophisticated guessing games that make up "philosophy." Isn't "existence" tied to the science of existence?