Incarnation

[Applespark]

Every Incarnation has it's own story for each person has been alive before in different skin. Could a carnation be in two skins at one. Could More then one person have the same incarnations as each other. When an incarnation reaches full evolving of the mind and becomes one with all and everything then it no longer effects any reincarnation of life because it's higher then that...So is there such thing as being the first carnation ...I mean is it always re incarnation cuz you cant have the re part without being before so where does incarnation start? Is that why some people don't think they have any afterlives...maybe they are the first carnation of themselves?

[tiki_god7]

I thinkevolution is a result of encarnations.....like consciousness kept developing and the body that housed the consciousness then had to grow with it.

[Bhaskar]

This is a very interesting topic, I will attempt to answer your question to the best of my limited capability.

There are 3 standpoints from which I will answer each of your questions, one from the standpoint of the infinite all pervading brahman, the absolute.

Next I will answer it from the standpoint of the Lord, taking Vishnu as my example. By Lord I mean the same formless infinite brahman, taking a specific form, imbued with the entire force and power and glory of that infinite eternal formless One.

Finally I will answer from the standpoint of the jeeva, you and I, floundering in the whole general mish-mash.

Could a carnation be in two skins at one.


a) From the standpoint of the Lord, this is possible. Lord is infinite and all powerful. When he takes avatar, he may choose to do so in as many forms as he likes. Sometimes his avatars overlap. For example, Sri Rama avatar and Sri Parasurama avatar actually meet each other in the Ramayana, at the time when Sri Rama breaks the bow and wins the hand of Seeta. After all, the Lord is the creator of the entire universe, he makes the rules, He is above all rules and laws of nature.

b) From the absolute standpoint, all life, all living beings are but forms of the one formless creative force. We are all manifestations of the one supreme lord alone and are imbued and pervaded by him. He is the substratum of the entire universe. All incarnations are but different forms of the same brahman.

c) From the standpoint of the jeeva, this is not possible. The cycle of birth and death takes place and the jeeva evolves over hundreds of such births before he finally reaches the point of realisation that he is infact that same infinite brahman.

Could More then one person have the same incarnations as each other.
First of all, the question of more than one person does not arise form the absolute standpoint, brahman alone exists, one without the other, so there is no concept of more than one person at all.

From the standpoint of the Lord, once again this is not possible, since there is only one Lord.

From the standpoint of the jeeva also, it is not something that can happen. This is because the body and the circumstances into which the jeeva is born are dependant on two things:
a) the karma accumulated over several lives, the results of the actions performed.

b) the vasanas that have been collected, the desires, the motivation for actions.

Therefore, each individual jeeva, having come through different paths of evolution will be born into different bodies and situations.

Of course it can be pointed out that there are cases of more than one jeeva in a single body, but this is more a case of possession by disembodied spirits, where a jeeva who is living out a period as a ghost, which is also a possible stop on the evolutionary path, invades the body of another jeeva and uses it. Again this is not a case of both jeevas taking incarnation together, but of one forcing itself into the other's body.


When an incarnation reaches full evolving of the mind and becomes one with all and everything then it no longer effects any reincarnation of life because it's higher then that.
This is not strictly a correct statement. Even after realisation, after achieving a merger with brahman, incarnations can happen. However, in this case, it is out of choice, not out of compulsion by any laws of the universe. It is simply out of love and a desire to free the sruggling jeevas from this cycle of change and suffering that they take form.

Many great saints have done so. Sant Thukaram was an example, he had achieved the highest liberation, but he lived in vaikuntha loka with his ishta devata, sri Hari. He took birth as Thukaramji, guided many to the path of moksha and then when his time had come, he left this world in a heavenly chariot and returned to vaikuntha. Yes, this may sound crazy, completely unreal. But it happened, in full public view, not very long ago (during the reign of the mughal emperor Aurangazeb).

Even the incarnations of Krishna, Rama, Buddha, etc were not born of compulsion, but of choice and of mercy and love, even though they were fully established in that highest reality.

..So is there such thing as being the first carnation ...I mean is it always re incarnation cuz you cant have the re part without being before so where does incarnation start?
What this boils down to is the question of creation. When and how was the first jeeva born? That is the question.

The upanishads forward several theories of creation. The idea is to divert the student's mind from the questions of "How did he create?", "When did He create?" and "Why did He create?" and point it towards the more urgent and useful questions "Who created?" and the subsequent "How do I find that Brahman?" etc which leads to the practical steps of sadhana and practise that lead to realisation.

The final conclusion is: Anirvachaniya (cannot be explained). The reason is this: creation is from Brahman, eternal, all pervading, infinite. This brahman is beyond the grasp of the intellect (Taitriya upanishad says: yato vaacho nivartante, apraapya manasa sah...that which defeats all words and is beyond the reach of the mind). Since brahman cannot be understood intellectually, creation, which is only a manifestation of brahman, cannot be understood intellectually either.

A simpler way of explaining and answering this question would be this: Brahman alone exists. That brahman is eternal, there is no question it's birth or death, since time itself is only a manifestation of that brahman. In that sense, incarnation never starts, because incarnation never exists at all from the standpoint of brahman, because this world of forms and shapes does ot exist from the standpoint of brahman.

Is that why some people don't think they have any afterlives...maybe they are the first carnation of themselves?

They dont believe in reincarnation because they have not reached that level of understanding of the universe in their personal journey.

All that said and done, such discussion, while definitely interesting, should be indulged in with care, it is very easy to lose oneself in the mire of words and logic and arguments. Far better to meditate on brahman, realise that One Truth, then all these relatively petty questions will be resolved on their own.

Om Sri Gurubhyo namah.

Hari Om.

[Applespark]

Thanks. I guess I have a lot to learn

[Bhaskar]

You're asking good questions. Thats very very important. Aint got far to go now. You have a human birth and your mind has turned towards God. The major part of the journey is behind you. Hurry Home!!

[BlackBillBlake]

The thing I would like to point out is regarding the nature of the soul (Jiva, Atman) that is said to reincarnate.
This is not the usual sense of self that we have quite spontaneously, but something much deeper. It is a portion of the Divine consciousness.
Its not that in my next life (should there be one!) that I will know, ah! last time I was BBB, or retain the same outer personality etc. But something in my being will have developed further, in line with the actions I am now doing. One will begin anew from a different starting place.
The whole point is somehow to awaken to knowledge of this hidden soul, this portion of the eternal godhead within us and all things - that is who we really are, not the idea we have of our ego or personality and so on.

This may seem obvious, but I mention it because some presentations of Vedic teachings seem to give the impression that we already know the Jiva - eg. Swami Prabhupada says we know about it because we can see that although the body changes from childhood to youth to old age, still we can see that it is the same person in the body. I would say this is misleading, because all we are really seeing there is the surface personality, the ego, which is quite different from the inner soul.

Om Shanti.

[Bhaskar]

I agree with you Bill...Actually, at the risk of angering the several hundreds of hare krishna followers on this site, I am not very fond of Swami Prabhupada's way of teaching or interpreting the Geeta, etc. He is great in that he has inspired many millions, which is good. I dont think he is very good at bringing out the subtler points hidden in the texts he explains.

In a realaudio conversation with John and Yoko he actually said that he doesnt interpret the geeta, that it is clear enough and pretty much stating that those who are interpreting and commenting on it are fools who are doing Hinduism a disservice. By saying thus, he is claiming that Swami Vivekananda, Adi Shankaracharya, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Sivananda, indeed innumerable acharyas over the centuries have done bad or Hinduism and that he alone is correct. He goes on to claim that in his publication, Gita as it is, he is not interpreting, only tellling it as it is, but he is in fact interpreting it according to his own lights (I have read a part of it). Basically he pretty much claimed, though not in so many words, that ISKON is the only genuine spiritual organisation and that he is the only good guru.

Also a lot of the Hare Krishna people I have met seem to have failed to understand the Geeta completely and resort to arguments like "Krishna told me so in a dream" etc while continuing to indulge in sense pleasures and ignore the true teaching of the bhagavad geeta. Some sad cases remind me of the born-again christians. I am sure the majority are not that way. At least, I really hope and pray they are not.

Sorry for the rant...

[Bhaskar]

On the other hand, his commentary on the bhagavatam is beautiful :)

[BlackBillBlake]

I agree with you Bill...Actually, at the risk of angering the several hundreds of hare krishna followers on this site, I am not very fond of Swami Prabhupada's way of teaching or interpreting the Geeta, etc. He is great in that he has inspired many millions, which is good. I dont think he is very good at bringing out the subtler points hidden in the texts he explains.

In a realaudio conversation with John and Yoko he actually said that he doesnt interpret the geeta, that it is clear enough and pretty much stating that those who are interpreting and commenting on it are fools who are doing Hinduism a disservice. By saying thus, he is claiming that Swami Vivekananda, Adi Shankaracharya, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Sivananda, indeed innumerable acharyas over the centuries have done bad or Hinduism and that he alone is correct. He goes on to claim that in his publication, Gita as it is, he is not interpreting, only tellling it as it is, but he is in fact interpreting it according to his own lights (I have read a part of it). Basically he pretty much claimed, though not in so many words, that ISKON is the only genuine spiritual organisation and that he is the only good guru.

Also a lot of the Hare Krishna people I have met seem to have failed to understand the Geeta completely and resort to arguments like "Krishna told me so in a dream" etc while continuing to indulge in sense pleasures and ignore the true teaching of the bhagavad geeta. Some sad cases remind me of the born-again christians. I am sure the majority are not that way. At least, I really hope and pray they are not.

Sorry for the rant...
Dear Bhaskar,

I fully share in your concerns about this. On these very forums, on the hare krishna thread started by Sleeping Jiva, there has been a certain amount of contention over these very issues.
I don't want to offend anyone, and I am sorry if people are offended when one has to point out some of Swami Prabhupada's errors and limitations.
What I cannot accept is his dismissal of other great gurus whom I deeply revere, esp. Sri Ramakrishna Parhamhansa.
Srila Prabhupada was a great and sincere Bhakta, and within his own line, a learned scholar. His works still provide for many an accessible introduction to basic Hindu philosophy and culture. However, I have personally had several negative experiences with followers, and in ISKCON as you are no doubt aware, there have been series of serious scandals since SP's departure. It seems he unfortunately picked a group of criminally minded ego-maniacs as his successors.
I don't particularly like his Gita commentary, as I think it misses much of the actual teaching of Lord Krishna. However, it could be useful to a beginner. I have only read extracts from his Bhagavata commentary, so I can't comment on that. But this I will say, even his presentation of Bhakti seems much more rigidly dualistic than Sri Chaitanya's own teaching, 'qulified non-dualism'. Prabhupada seems to me more like Mahdva - a dualist through and through.

On the other hand.... his greatest contribution was in spreading the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra in the west. For that, I'm sure millions are grateful.


Wishing you peace & joy at Christmas.

BBB.

[Bhaskar]

Beloved BBB,

Thank you. I was afraid someone would really lash out at me for saying something like that. I havent read much of his bhagavatam, but from the point of view of telling stories of the lord, I appreciate it.

The true beauty and magnificence of bhagavata katha, though, is brought out when taught by Swami Tejomayananda, he not only invokes great devotion and love, not only is it so beautiful and moving, but he is able to also bring out the symbolism in the tales, never parting from advaita, always ensuring that we keep the basic tenets of vedantic knowledge firmly rooted in our minds. He teaches bhagavatam as it should be taught. Of course I am biased, because he is my Guru, my beloved ishta devata, one for whom I have love stronger than anything I thought possible.