if reincarnation is real do certain races require more

[Flolfolil]

i don't really believe in reincarnation, but i like to think of it in terms of archetypes and not individual souls

[Apech]

i don't really believe in reincarnation, but i like to think of it in terms of archetypes and not individual souls

 

I bet you said the same thing back in the day when you were Cleopatra.

[Marblehead]

Which category do you fall into?

Well, I do not consider myself a troll even though I have, on a couple of occasions, been accused of such but I sure am a philosophical fundamentalist.

 

So in my book you would qualify for such a discussion. The word 'karma' doesn't have to be an idol.

Exactly. Karma is greatly over-rated, IMO.

 

I would think that a more important question to ask, as opposed to asking about karma, would be "How do I make my life better?"

[Marblehead]

If you acknowledge cause and effect, you don't have to make a belief out of it. It is just reality, right?

Exactly. It is just the way I understand reality.

 

Reincarnation is a pretty bad and confusing word actually because it suggests a substratum that would incarnate in different bodies. Buddhists don't accept that idea. From what I read, their idea is different and smarter than that. Perhaps some knowledgeable member (no troll, no fundamentalist) could give it a go?

Yeah, I would like to see such a discussion, without the arguing this time.

[Bubbles]

I would think that a more important question to ask, as opposed to asking about karma, would be "How do I make my life better?"

By observing objectively and very closely cause and effect at work and drawing conclusions from there.

This method is the one recommended by the Buddha, if I understood well.

[doc benway]

 

Reincarnation is a pretty bad and confusing word actually

I agree - too many associations and preconceptions with that word and pop concept.

A more accurate word might be rebirth.

 

 

 

i don't really believe in reincarnation, but i like to think of it in terms of archetypes and not individual souls

I don't really believe in belief. Better to try and know or be ok to not know and keep an open mind.

 

 

The concept of rebirth to me is intimately related to my view of things like my true nature and the nature of things, the nature of life and death, what we are after death and what we are before death. It's closely related to concepts like karma, sunyata, and pratityasamutpada. To the extent that we hold different views on these ideas, we will have different views on rebirth. One thing I find interesting is that I've spoken to a number of folks whose ideas on these various topics are internally inconsistent. That's one of the problems with belief - if I accept the explanation of an authority without personal validation, I risk grasping onto inconsistent and confusing views which I will then identify with and defend, all the while having no idea of what I'm defending.

[Bubbles]

Yeah, I would like to see such a discussion, without the arguing this time.

Me too.

[doc benway]

Karma is greatly over-rated, IMO.

Misunderstood perhaps, but definitely not over-rated.

It is simply how things are.

 

 

I would think that a more important question to ask, as opposed to asking about karma, would be "How do I make my life better?"

They are one and the same question.

[Marblehead]

Well Steve,

 

It appears we are in agreement but we sure are using vastly different words. But that's okay.

 

And that's just the way life is.

[doc benway]

Well Steve,

 

It appears we are in agreement but we sure are using vastly different words. But that's okay.

 

And that's just the way life is.

I like that.

[Apech]

I like Marblehead's question - how can I make my life better ... because that's really the heart of this thing. For instance pondering karma and rebirth is counter productive if it makes you miserable or confused. I see these things very simply. I like to think that I can do things that can benefit myself and others. Its not a obsession its just a preference. And I think if you do - you surround yourself with a pleasant environment - a kind of aura of kindness if you like. I also intuitively feel that there is some kind of continuance after death and on the basis of impossibility of the destroying energy that everything that emerges in the future depends on what is happening now. It makes sense to me. But I don't see any profit in trying to perpetuate myself beyond my allotted time or cling to some idea that I am so important that I (as this person) will continue. These ideas give a kind of stability, a kind of healthy balance. But I know that if someone were to come to me tomorrow and prove beyond doubt that there was no such effect as karma and death was just an extinction then I would just shrug my shoulders and say 'hey ... let's have some coffee'.

[Marblehead]

I would have to first brew some fresh coffee though.

[Neophyte]

I believe this is true. There was a study that showed, not too long ago, that certain races have certain genes that affect their behavior, and many other factors, that differ between the races.

 

For myself, this flesh suit is of a race that is known for its stereotype being massive alcoholism. And I have always found strong pulls towards drinking, father was an alcoholic, and I have lost tons of uncles to alcoholism.

 

This is something I sometimes think about, and it really makes it difficult to accept reincarnation as a viable hypothesis. If we inherit genes that affect our behaviour, then what traits are left that belong to the soul?

 

In other words, there is no need for a "soul" because everything that makes us "us" can be accounted for through the material world. ie. genes and environment.

 

We've long understood that the bodies we have are given us by the scrambling of our parents' DNA, but now science is showing us that even our thoughts and behaviour--things we've perceived as being even more personal and profound that even our bodies--are determined by the genes we inherit!

 

So once again, what aspects of ourselves can only be explained by invoking a "soul"?

[mantis]

what if not everyone has a soul ?

[silent thunder]

what if not everyone has a soul ?

nice one... southpaw!

[Marblehead]

In other words, there is no need for a "soul" because everything that makes us "us" can be accounted for through the material world. ie. genes and environment.

 

We've long understood that the bodies we have are given us by the scrambling of our parents' DNA, but now science is showing us that even our thoughts and behaviour--things we've perceived as being even more personal and profound that even our bodies--are determined by the genes we inherit!

Actually, this is the arguement that should be used when one is arguing against "free will". But few people try to go there.

 

I suppose the "soul" is the base from which the concept of reincarnation is talked about. Did the soul exist before there was a vessel to put it in? And did it (the soul) get put into the vessel it 'desereved' based on its prior life?

 

For me this would make life all too complicated.

[Apech]

Actually, this is the arguement that should be used when one is arguing against "free will". But few people try to go there.

 

I suppose the "soul" is the base from which the concept of reincarnation is talked about. Did the soul exist before there was a vessel to put it in? And did it (the soul) get put into the vessel it 'desereved' based on its prior life?

 

For me this would make life all too complicated.

 

 

That's the Hindu version - soul = atman ... which is said to be not different to Brahman ... so yes it existed before a vessel to put it in was ... but doesn't make any sense to me.

[Marblehead]

... but doesn't make any sense to me.

Hehehe. I never said I believed it. Just that it could be used as an arguement.

[ॐDominicusॐ]

This is something I sometimes think about, and it really makes it difficult to accept reincarnation as a viable hypothesis. If we inherit genes that affect our behaviour, then what traits are left that belong to the soul?

Different bodies/races, are like different brands of cars. If you buy a ferrari, you can drive fast as heck, but you have to guzzle lot's of fuel to feed all those pistons. If you get a tiny yugo, or smart car, you'll get better mpg, but you can't drive fast. Get a toyota, it's known to be dependable.

 

So too with human bodies and races. Look at most American Athletes and you'll notice they are black. When Slave Owners kidnapped Africans, they went for the biggest best built bodies.

 

Asians/Indians are very intellectual/logical, and many of them in the U.S. are engineers, scientists, etc.

 

There was one Taobum here, who discussed that he is mixed race and said that defeats my argument giving several examples. Well yeah cool!!! I have various nephews/family members that are mixed race and Scientist are saying that by the year 3000, there will only be one race, a combo of all of them combined. Regardless, each race does have specific combinations of genes/etc.

 

In other words, there is no need for a "soul" because everything that makes us "us" can be accounted for through the material world. ie. genes and environment.

There still is a soul, and it has universal aspects in all people. Peaceful, expansive, loving, understanding, etc. But the body/mind complex covers up the true/real

 

So once again, what aspects of ourselves can only be explained by invoking a "soul"?

IF you study all the different spiritual paths, that offer blueprints on realizing the soul, you'll find a vast array of Universalities

[ion]

Which scientist are saying by the year 3,000 there will be only one race? As far as I know, all the data that weve compiled on the genome points to the fact that there is no such thing as race period

 

A "black" person from Africa, and a "white" person from sweden, are more closely related to eachother then chimpanzee siblings are to eachother.

 

So Any two random humans from anywhere on the planet, or any group of random humans share more common genes and are thus more like family then actual brothers and sisters in a troop of chimps.

 

What is the scientific data indicating that there is such a thing as race?

 

The same gene that makes a brown person brown are in my body in my genome too. Im not albino so I do produce melanin and have the same gene that makes a person brown, the only diffenrce is mine is made to stop producing melanin before a brown persons does.

 

There is not any great difference between anyones genome where you could say," this one is drasticly different then that one", in fact I have brown hair and my brother has blonde, and the genes that cause that difference in appearence are no greater or less then what differentiates me from a person with drasticly different features like brown skin. The only differences are in the percieved appearence.

 

Forensics scientist can tell a persond race by looking at there DNA, true or false? False, although from watching TV you might think they can. What they can do is say that there is a high probability that a person is caucasion or african american based on statistical data...aprobability, plus the fact that they say that the people with those genes are a race that is either african or caucasion is purely a label and doesn't give any credit to support the concept of race.

 

The fact that you say that "by the year 3,000, we'll all be one race" shows that you understand that genes are not confined to any particular race but are only superficialy isolated by geographic and cultural barriers by pure chance and circumstance.

Edited August 31, 2013 by ion

[ion]

Forensics scientist can tell a persond race by looking at there DNA, true or false? False, although from watching TV you might think they can. What they can do is say that there is a high probability that a person is caucasion or african american based on statistical data...aprobability, plus the fact that they say that the people with those genes are a race that is either african or caucasion is purely a label and doesn't give any credit to support the concept of race.

I realize this statement could be misleading so I wanted to elaborate.

 

On tv detective shows, you see the myth of race perpetuated because it shows cops deducint that the remains of a victim are from a black male or whatever based on dna found in a bone fragment or whatever.

 

In real life they can tell if there is a probability that some one is "this or that", if they have a particular combination/group of genes. NOT A PARTICULAR GENE, but a combination/group of generic genes that by them selves or paired differently could be in anyone of any "race".

 

This combonation of genes implying a probability is just that, because the person might also be polynesean and polynesean isnt a race either. The particular gene combinations that TV writers are saying is "Black", is just as likely polynesean or micronesean. These people are thought to be of Asian decent, not directly african.

 

If you were to take certain genetic types from Somoa, Pure Hawaiian lineage(like on the island of Ni'hau), Tonga, Guam(micronesian), and probably other places, and place them in a genetic line up they would all come up as probably African American to a cop, because they are basing that probability on statistical data, and that also statisticly there are more African Americans on the US mainland then there are Tongans.

 

It is also more accurate if they were to say,"... there is a high probability that this person is what we LABEL as black/african-american." Instead of "There is a high probability the victim was African Amerrican", because it is a label for people with a certain combination/group of genes and cultural backround, not an objective state of being.

 

I want to also clarify that not all polyneseans etc would carry that gene combination/group, and not all Africans either. It is not attatched to a race but is carried by individuals who have those particular charecteristics in combination.

 

Also to underline, all the genes in the group that make up the probability can be carried and expressed by people of any cultural backround and ethnicity.

 

Genes are universal, their grouping is circumstancial and cultural.

 

Edit to ad- The way that scientist tell how genes travel through time etc, like how they can tell a particular people were living in one region and over time migrated to another, is not by the human genome. They can trace the distribution of people from africa to everywhere else by looking at mitochondrial DNA which is different then human DNA. Mitochondria is contained in all human cells and is inherited by the mother. Mitochondria is thought to have been a completely seperate entity, a bacteria that was assimilated by plant and animal cells looooooooooooong ago to form a biological symbiosis because of the ATP produced by mitochondria. Over time it basically became apart of the host cell yet it still has its own dna that is not human DNA, and that is what scientist look at to discern the migration of genes.

 

Its probably also the mithochondrial DNA looked at by real forensics experts in combination with other genes in the human genome when available, but it too is inconclusive when trying to pinpoint a "race". Because it doesnt influence appearence or race and can be carried by anyone.

Edited August 31, 2013 by ion

[doc benway]

In other words, there is no need for a "soul" because

.... just because

 

 

 

everything that makes us "us" can be accounted for through the material world. ie. genes and environment.

Can it?

Where and what is awareness?

Most of us think we know the answer to that but if you dedicate some time really looking for it, it can be quite elusive.

[ॐDominicusॐ]

Which scientist are saying by the year 3,000 there will be only one race? As far as I know, all the data that weve compiled on the genome points to the fact that there is no such thing as race period

 

 

From the article:

 

A varied population forged from the long-term mixing of Africans, Native Americans and Europeans serves as an archetype for the future of humanity, Stearns said: A few centuries from now, we're all going to look like Brazilians.

http://www.livescience.com/34228-will-humans-eventually-all-look-like-brazilians.html

 

 

The fact that you say that "by the year 3,000, we'll all be one race" shows that you understand that genes are not confined to any particular race but are only superficialy isolated by geographic and cultural barriers by pure chance and circumstance.

A toyota and a ferrari are both "Cars." I think we can both agree to at least that much. Now on the other hand, the Ferrari is going to give you numerous advantages and possibilities that the toyota never could, and vice versa. Yes they are both cars, but they are also different.

 

Genes are universal, their grouping is circumstancial and cultural.

My point is that certain folks with have more of certain genes, based on geography, culture, and also race.

 

Genes influence soooooo many things, not just physical features, but also psychological, logic, reason, spiritual.

 

Now let's look at the majority of Ferrai owners will be certain types, definite psychological/cultural similarities, maybe even physical similarities. Same with the toyota owners.

 

But what the heck, does it really matter at the end of the day? Nothing is really set in stone and this could all be one big simulation, according to science

[ion]

From the article:

 

http://www.livescience.com/34228-will-humans-eventually-all-look-like-brazilians.html

 

 

A toyota and a ferrari are both "Cars." I think we can both agree to at least that much. Now on the other hand, the Ferrari is going to give you numerous advantages and possibilities that the toyota never could, and vice versa. Yes they are both cars, but they are also different.

 

My point is that certain folks with have more of certain genes, based on geography, culture, and also race.

 

Genes influence soooooo many things, not just physical features, but also psychological, logic, reason, spiritual.

 

Now let's look at the majority of Ferrai owners will be certain types, definite psychological/cultural similarities, maybe even physical similarities. Same with the toyota owners.

 

But what the heck, does it really matter at the end of the day? Nothing is really set in stone and this could all be one big simulation, according to science

The facts in the article, and even the speculation presented that was inspired by doesnt negate the fact that there is no such thing as race, in fact it supports it regaurdless of the fact that it uses the term, "race.

 

If you click on the link provided in the article you provided, you'll probably wish that you'd read it earlier because it says what I've been saying , even pointing to chimps as an example. It says hat scientist no longer believe in race. If you read the first couple post I made in this thread, you will also find it ironic that I used brazil as an example (just like your article)to contrast our perception of race.

 

Heres from your article-

 

It sounds sordid at worst and lazy at best, but in fact, the Fugates' tale is a miniature version of the story of human coupling since time immemorial. Local populations interbreed, causing a sharing of genes, a resulting in-group physical resemblance and, eventually, identification as a distinct race or ethnic group.

 

Now click on the link-

 

 

Although humans are sometimes divided into races, the morphological variation between races is not indicative of major differences in DNA. For example, recent genetic studies show skin color may drastically change in as few as 100 generations, spanning 2,500 years, as a result of environmental influences. Furthermore, the DNA of two humans chosen at random generally varies by less than 0.1 percent. This is less genetic variation than other types of hominids (such as chimpanzees and orangutans), leading some scientists to describe all humans as belong to the same race — the human race.

 

 

Your comparison of automobile varieties is definitely racists. Yes all PEOPLE are different, just like some of us are more observent and mindful then others.

 

 

Genes influence soooooo many things, not just physical features, but also psychological, logic, reason, spiritual.

 

Now let's look at the majority of Ferrai owners will be certain types, definite psychological/cultural similarities, maybe even physical similarities. Same with the toyota owners.

 

But what the heck, does it really matter at the end of the day? Nothing is really set in stone and this could all be one big simulation, according to science

I disagree idea that genes alter our psychological make up, probably less then our gender. They do only through ways of identification when the psyche is forming, but the psyche forms and is not a product of race, but of culture.

 

Look at president Obama. This might piss some people off but as far as Im concerned, Obama is whiter then me, and all though I am classified as "white", because of the reality of it being that "white" is only an ethnicity and not a race, I therefore do not have to identify with that enthnicity and therefore am not white.

 

As a follower and treader on my path of refinement, I reject the identetity of a "whiteman" and do not identify with the what I see as definining the parameteres of that ethnic group. Knowing that this is the reality, I also dont see Obama as black, he is literally whiter then me regaurdless of skin color.

 

But here is a better example.

 

Unlike a ferrari or a toyata, you can take a baby human, a growing and developing thing that is receptive and not an objectivly formed entity, from a suburban white family in Ohio at birth and place him in the care of a tribe in the amazon basin to be raised by an indigenous tribal group isolated from western civilization, and beaver cleaver will not be the result.

 

That "white" baby will grow into an inegral part of that ethnic group and culture. That person will in no way shape or form identify with the American way, dream or political system. That person will identify with its culture as its race, that pone will no more identify with its biological family as its people then I identify with my neighbors pet fish as mine.

 

That person will not carry a hint of western/american ideology, he will not tend to be judeo-christian in morality and will not even live within the same hyper-reality as anyone in the couuntry where the people he was born from reside.

 

This is true. There is a movie you can watch that was inspired by the true story of this happening. We had to wath this movie in a cultural anthropology class I took because its a good example of how culture works in some respects.

 

An American architect was in south America working on a major dam building operation. He took his family down to see the job site where he was working and there 6 year old son was "kidnapped" by one of the indigenous tribes. He was raised by them. He forgot how to speak english and forgot everything about his past.

 

His dad looked for him for years and eventually found him. The boy only remembered his das image from dreams he had growing up. When he saw him he thought his name was Da'de' but did not associate with a title of fatherhood. The boy regaurded an elder of his tribe as his father and regarded himself as one of the indigenous peoples. Because the indigenous cultures do not live in our hyper reality, or our ideology or withing the kindhip ties we adhere to, they also regarded the boy as one of them and not white like the man who came looking for him.

 

The movie is called "Emerald forest" and is the true story of the account. Its a bit cheezy and over does it with the hollywood aspects so is not a perfect representation of the phenomenon, but it happens because of the process called, enculturation.

Edited September 1, 2013 by ion

[Isimsiz Biri]

If there is reincarnation (which I believe it does) one should be born as a Jew, Arab, Chinese, Japanese, Scottish, American, Spanish, etc. Then, any kind of racism is meaningless as we have lived members of all nations, religions, etc.