|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reincarnation article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
|Reincarnation has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 30 days may be archived by.|
- 1 Reincarnation in the West
- 2 Hinduism
- 3 Stevenson et al
- 4 Kabbalah also teaches that "The soul of Moses is reincarnated in every generation"
- 5 Don't most Jews believe in reincarnation?
- 6 Mormonism
- 7 Shias
- 8 Non-personal reincarnation
- 9 African vodun section
- 10 'Reincarnation...now scientifically confirmed concept'
Reincarnation in the West
Well, to hear statement, that there is 44 % those who believe in reincarnation in Lithuania (thats were I living in) is simply too ridiculous. Also in highly catholic countries, like Poland and Italy every 1/5 person believes in reincarnation, i.e. completely opposite believe to catholic doctrine ? Sounds something wierd.(Submixster (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC))
Thanks for the helpful text on this theme, Kapil.xerox. I have tried to simplify the wording, using English terms with the Hindu original in parenthesis afterwards, which seems appropriate for an encyclopedia aimed at laypersons. I hope my changes are acceptable. Do fix anything I have gotten wrong, as I am not an expert! hgilbert (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the current wording in Hinduism section. The article says reincarnation idea is non-Vedic? Not true. Quoting from "The Brahmasutras and their principal commentaries by B.N.K. Sharma" - Rig Veda 4:27:1-2 record the experiences of Vamadeva on the basis of awareness of his own former lives. RV 4:26:1 goes on to say (of Vamadeva) - "I was Manu and Surya. I was Rsi Kaksivan the Brahmin". Madhva in his commentary on the Brahmasutras uses these sruthi verses in the aphorism 1:1:28-31 of the Brahmasutras Antaryami Pranadhikaranam. Could someone repsond on this issue? If not, I can go ahead and provide this quotation in support of reincarnation in the RV to add to the already present RV verses.
Stevenson et al
Mentioning the research on reincarnation done by Stevenson et al seems perfectly proper...why would it be giving undue weight to peer-reviewed research to mention this in one sentence, especially since critical responses are also included? -- Also, though the mention of particular works is not necessary here, links to the titles of their works do not seem terribly obnoxious. Take these out if you really want to...hgilbert (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- There's no problem having it in the body of the article, but why must we showcase it in the lead? Out of all the other material in all the other sections in the article, why Stevenson and his book titles be given special attention in the lead? It borders on WP:ADVERT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad this material was restored. One of the books is by Stevenson and one is by Tucker. There is no mention about avoiding book title links in WP:Lead, and many FAs have them, see Ernest Hemmingway and Rachel Carson. I don't see how it looks like an advert. Rather than remove material from the lead, consider expanding it to 4 paragraphs, as is common for an article of this length, for better coverage of neglected viewpoints. Johnfos (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- You know, in those two cases (, ) the books mentioned in the lead are the books those writers wrote... I hope that no one believes that "Reincarnation" itself somehow wrote the two books mentioned in the lead of this article...
- Anyway, it is completely clear that giving those books one (or two, if we count "Skeptics are critical of this work and generally are incredulous about any claims of life after death.") sentences out of nine () is undue (including the sense of WP:UNDUE). Even if the theory promoted by the books was not fringe, the relevant writings of philosophers, theologians, scholars of comparative religion and historians would dwarf those books. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I do agree that the lead shouldn't promote particular books, songs, etc. I've removed Kundun, What Dreams May Come and Birth, authors Carol Bowman and Vicki Mackenzie, and Stevenson and Tucker. They can be put back into an appropriate place in the body of the article if someone feels its important. hgilbert (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Stevenson's research and "reincarnation research" in general is of minor significance to the topic of the article. It is fringe, at best, and has not been widely recived in the academic community. By far most of it has been published in books and journals with no semblence of academic review, primarily his own sham journal. This work is not widely cited by independent scholars in their own peer-reviewed work, and has indeed been largely ignored. Those who have examined it have found it wanting to the point of being implausible at best, methodologically flawed to the point of being useless, or just plain pseudoscience. His credibility in this field is irreparably damaged by the fact that he set up a fake journal in which to promote himself and his work. Few scholars writing about reincarnation in real academic sources mention Stevenson, and there is no evidence that academic experts on reincarnation even know that he existed. To give more than a very brief allusion to it in this article violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:ONEWAY. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kabbalah also teaches that "The soul of Moses is reincarnated in every generation"
I added the following to the Judaism category... Kabbalah also teaches that "The soul of Moses is reincarnated in every generation" <ref]Kabbalah for Dummies</ref]. I came up with that reference by memory and need to find the book to provide page #, author, publisher, and year. - Ben Hurt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't most Jews believe in reincarnation?
I was told by a rabbi at a forum that pretty much all Orthodox Jews, both Sephard and Ashkenazi, believe in Kabbalah, and, therefore, in reincarnation, contrary to what this Wikipedia article is saying. Which is not to say that many actually know Kabbalah; most simply don't get that far in their studies. The source seemed authoritative, and was not contradicted by anyone else, so I'd say it's worth checking.
I was told Moroccan Jews are the largest exception of that rule.
You don't hear much about reincarnation because 1) Jews are not encouraged to prozelitize, and 2) Judaism was born as an anti-Egyptian religion of sorts, and as a result, the Egyptian obsession with the afterlife is discouraged. Jews are pretty much told that this world is what matters now, everything else we are going to find out when we get there. But yes, I believe reincarnation is a bigger part of Judaism than the article says.
The main article suggests merging pre-existence with reincarnation. Pre-existence is a very big deal in Mormonism, and is completely different from reincarnation. Even for non-Mormons, pre-existence does not have to mean physically existing or existing on this world or with a different name. Pre-existence and reincarnation are fundamentally different. For this reason I vote to keep the topics separate. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The following text was removed from the lead: "and the Shia sects such as the Alawi Shias". Does anyone know whether this group incorporates beliefs in reincarnation? Should the text be restored or not? hgilbert (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that preexistence should not be merged with reincarnation, because in some religious sects the belief is that the current birth is the only one and the soul exists before the current birth till it is ready to take birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddmisra (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe that some people believe that reincarnation is possible without there being a soul. For example, in buddhism, the empty not-self is reborn every time one dies (according to some schools). The core of the being is not a singular entity (anatman), but just pure consciousness, without "I".
In the concept of trikaya, there are three bodies that describe something that is a bit like a soul. The pure everything-that-exist-at-once dharmakaya being like the atmosphere, the intermediary sambhogakaya being like clouds and the experience-of-being-a-human nirmanakaya being like the rain that falls from the clouds. The dharmakaya is eternal, while clouds move over the surface of the earth and the rain being our temporary experiences as humans.
Here, the "I" is just a temporary manifestation of something entirely different, and not at all like what we usually mean with a soul. I would say that this is a belief that does not include souls (or an I) at all. The concept of a soul is merely added so that we (people with a western culture) have words to use for describing it.
African vodun section
On investigation of the link and book title, I removed the most obvious promotional material from this section, but have the impression that the whole section relies on a spurious source. There is better more authoritative, well-researched material out there. Generally, the terminology is not classic to writings on vodun/voudon/voodoo. Manytexts (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
'Reincarnation...now scientifically confirmed concept'
'Reincarnation' is the religious or philosophical concept - and now scientifically confirmed concept... I added "now scientifically confirmed concept" because the book Soul Survivor strongly documents reincarnation. Reincarnation Theory & its 23 Principles/Theory of Luck (ex. Einstein returned as Watson) (http://7seals.blogspot.com ) is another strong scientific proof as is all the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and his associates at University Of Virginia and the many psychiatrists practicing past-life regression. - Benjamin Franklin 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's been removed. Please don't add it again as it is a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. The scientific consensus is still that reincarnation doesn't happen. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's correct WP policy to remove this passage, but it's worth noting that science doesn't make claims one way or another about reincarnation, which is outside its remit, and that there is certainly no "scientific consensus" about the subject. Some scientists make such claims, but without any scientific basis for either side of the issue, they are just expressing personal beliefs. And no, a few skeptics who are not specialists in a field do not a consensus make. HGilbert (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)