According to Theosophy
Background: The idea of reincarnation was first brought to the West and popularized in the latter part of the nineteenth century by Madame Helena Blavatsky. Now, according to a recent Gallup poll, 27% of the United States population believes reincarnation to be true. Blavatsky claimed to have been taught details of reincarnation as an integral part of a larger fragment of the ancient perennial philosophy by masters of this knowledge who had preserved the ancient knowledge intact. The empirical results we are finding today on this subject match the statements made over 100 years ago, that in turn were alledged to be the knowledge from millenia ago from "those who know".
So we present here information from Blavatsky and her student William Q. Judge along with numerous places to visit for more information.
You may also want to visit the "reincarnation" aisle of Seeker Books for a range of other books specifically on this topic.
Also available is an extensive set of direct quotes from Blavatsky on reincarnation.
FAQ
Is reincarnation true?
Yes. We repeatedly are reborn on earth taking up another life using another body and with a different "personality".
Are we ever reborn as an animal?
No. That is a misunderstanding in some traditions. (The original teachings of those traditions did not hold this view.) Once an individual has reached the level of complexity of a human being, he or she must reincarnate as a human being to continue to work out the relationships of the past and to develop and grow in an environment of suitable complexity.
By the way, you mention "he or she". Could I have been one of the opposite sex in a previous reincarnation?
Yes, definitely. The soul is sexless. It may reincarnate in either sex and it may change from one to the other gender in different lives.
When I die, do I come back immediately?
No. There is a definite cycle of life as a whole. Our life from infant to old-age is a part of that cycle. Death itself is a process divided into recognizable stages. There is a period of long rest between "lifetimes". Typically, for the mass of humanity, that period of rest is about 1,000 to 1,500 years. Then the individual is reborn.
But exactly what is reborn?
A "higher" spiritual part of us is reborn. Theosophy says the "personality" was left behind at the previous death. Certain of that personality's tendencies, lessons learned, character and pure spirit are assimilated from the previous life and remain with the "individual" to be reborn again. The important distinction is between "personality" and "individuality". Over the course of lives, the individuality increases and the personality becomes of less importance. Theosophy has much more detailed information on this question. For the best introduction to that information see How can I learn more described below.
Strictly speaking, we should not say we "have" a soul. Rather, we are a soul and the soul "has" a body it has aquired and is working through. Part of our task is to become aware of this truth.
Why don't I remember my previous lives?
It was a different brain that knew the details of your previous life - so that life and the preceeding ones are not normally remembered in detail. The influences of those lives will of course remain. However at the moment of death we will sometimes see the past life details and as we progress in our individual evolution we come to be able to remember the past lives that had previously been forgotten.
Are such things actually know facts?
Yes - there are masters of wisdom, great adepts, who are actual living human beings that collectively retain and advance the knowledge of these matters. They can see the progress of the soul as it moves through these stages. For them, this is directly observable information. It was taught to Blavatsky during her stay in Tibet and she promulgated it to the world during the 19th century. For more info see Source of Theosophy.
What is the point of the reincarnation?
We must back up a little. Our souls are all part of one soul. At root we are one. Brotherhood is actually a fact in nature when we look to the underlying reality. Each of these seemingly separate individualities gains experience, learns lessons - and ultimately, the consciousness of the universe gains increasing experience, increases in relative perfection, and increases in self-conciousness.
Does reincarnation then, never stop?
Yes and no. From our relative point of view we are aiming for perfection. This will take many many more incarnations. At a very advanced stage we may choose to take a well earned rest or to return as a bodisattva to help suffering humantiy. But then the cycle continues at a higher level. In the largest sense, there is no end to the cycle and no end to increasing perfection.
Returning to an earlier question - don't some individuals reincarnate much earlier than 1000 - 1500 years?
Yes. Children who die young may return quickly. Those who die from accidents may return quickly. Those committed to service and the cause of spiritual truths may return faster to speed up the service and growth and the help to humanity. However, compare the rise of Rome some 1500 years ago to the rise of the industrialized West.
How can I learn more about what Theosophy teaches on this subject?
Material by William Q. Judge:
The esoteric truth on the subject of reincarnation - in book form: |
Some articles by Judge shed more light on issues concerning reincarnation:
Friends or Enemies in the Future - very practical
Christian Fathers on Reincarnation
Reincarnation in Judaism and the Bible
Transmigration of Souls - concerns reincarnating into animals
Universal Applications of Doctrine - explains that reincarnation applies to more than just our individual lives.
Overviews of Theosophy by Judge that include reincarnation:
Theosophy Generally Stated - article giving a brief overview of Theosophy
Epitome of Theosophy - an essay (long article) giving overview of Theosophy
At www.seekerbooks.com/book/9780938998204.htm these articles by Judge are available in a valuable two volume set.
RESPECTING REINCARNATION
OBJECTIONS frequently raised against "Reincarnation," and that appear to those who make them to be strong, are some growing out of the emotional part of our nature. They say, "We do not wish to be some one else in another life; how can we recognize our friends and loved ones if they and we thus change our personality? The absorbing attachments we form here are such that happiness would seem impossible without those we love."
It is useless to say in reply that, if Reincarnation be the law, it can and will make no difference what we would like or dislike. So long as one is governed by his likes and dislikes, logical arguments will not dissipate objections, and, if it is coldly asserted that the beloved objects of our affection pass at death forever beyond us, no relief is afforded to the mind nor is a strictly accurate statement made. In fact, one of the miseries of conditioned existence is the apparent liability of forever losing those upon whom we place our hearts. So to meet this difficulty raised by ever present death, the christian churches have invented their heaven in which reunion is possible under a condition, the acceptance of the dogma of the Redeemer. None of their believers seem to consider that, inasmuch as constantly many of those most closely bound to us by every tie do not and never will meet the prerequisite condition, happiness in that heaven cannot be possible when we constantly are aware that those unbelievers are suffering in hell, for, enough memory being left to permit us to recognize believing friends, we cannot forget the others. Greater than ever, then, that difficulty becomes.
What are these loves? must be asked. They are either (a) a love for the mere physical body, or (b)one for the soul within. Of course in the first case, the body being disintegrated at death, it is not possible for us, nor need we wish--unless we are grossly materialistic--to see that in the other life. And personality belongs only to the body. Hence, if the soul that we do love inhabits another physical frame, it is the law--a part of the law of Reincarnation not often stated or dwelt on--that we will again, when incarnated, meet that same soul in the new tenement. We cannot, however, always recognize it. But that, the recognition or memory of those whom we knew before, is one of the very objects of our study and practice. Not only is this the law as found in ancient books, but it has been positively stated, in the history of the Theosophical Society, in a letter from an Adept addressed not many years ago to some London theosophists. In it he asked them if they imagined that they were together as incarnated beings for the first time, stated that they were not, and laid down the rule that the real affinities of soul life drew them together on earth.
To be associated against our will with those who lay upon us the claim of mother, father, brother, son, or wife from a previous life would neither be just nor necessary. Those relations, as such, grew out of physical ties alone, and souls that are alike, who really love each other, as well as those who harbor hate, are brought together in mortal bodies as now father and now son--, or otherwise.
So, then, with the doctrine of Devachan we have the answer. In that state we have with us, for all practical purposes and to suit our desire, every one whom we loved on earth: upon being reincarnated we are again with those whose souls we are naturally attracted to.
By living up to the highest and best of our convictions, for humanity and not for self, we make it possible that we shall at last recognize in some earth-life those persons whom we love, and to lose whom forever seems such a dreary and uninviting prospect. -- Path, August, 1888 -- http://www.blavatsky.net/judge/arts/RespectingReincarnation.htm
ARGUMENT FOR REINCARNATION
IT has been suggested to the PATH that theosophists jot down as they occur any arguments hit upon to support the doctrine of reincarnation. One furnishes this: That the persistency of individual character and attitude of mind seems a strong argument; and adduces the fact that when he was a youth thirty years ago he wrote a letter to himself upon questions about God, nature, and the inner man, and finds now upon re-reading it that it almost exactly expresses his present attitude. Also he thinks that the inner character of each shows itself in early youth, persisting through life; and as each character is different there must have been reincarnation to account for the differences. And that the assertion that differences in character are due to heredity seems to be disposed of by the persistency of essential character, even if, as we know to be the case, scientists did not begin to deny the sufficiency of heredity to account for our differences.
Another writes: If heredity would account for that which, existing in our life, makes us feel that we have lived here before, then the breeding of dogs and horses would show similar great differences as are observed in men. But a high-bred slut will bring forth a litter of pups by a father of equal breed, all exhibiting one character, whereas in the very highest bred families among men it is well known that the children will differ from each other so much that we cannot rely upon the result. Then again, considering the objections raised on ground of heredity, it should not be forgotten that but small attention has been paid to those cases where heredity will not give the explanation.
Inherent differences of character. The great differences in capacity seem to call for reincarnation as the explanation. Notice that the savages have the same brains and bodies as ours, yet not the same character or intelligence; they seem to be unprogressed egos who are unable to make the machine of brain to respond to its highest limit. -- Path, August. 1891 -- http://www.blavatsky.net/judge/arts/ArgumentForReincarnation.htm
REINCARNATION IN THE BIBLE
AN exhaustive paper on this subject is not contemplated in this article, but even a sketch will show that the Christian Bible has in it the doctrine of Reincarnation. Of course those who adhere only to what the church now teaches on the subject of man, his nature and destiny, will not quickly accept any construction outside of the theological one, but there are many who, while not in the church, still cling to the old book from which they were taught.
In the first place, it must be remembered that the writers of the biblical books were Jews with few exceptions, and that the founder of Christianity--Jesus--was himself a Jew. An examination of his own sayings shows that he thought his mission was to the Jews only and not to the Gentiles. He said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." This clearly referred to the Jews and as clearly excluded the Gentiles. And on one occasion he refused for some time to do anything for a Gentile woman until her importunity at last compelled him to act; and then too he referred to his mission to the Jews. So in looking into these things we must also look at what were the beliefs of the day. The Jews then most undoubtedly believed in reincarnation. It was a commonly accepted doctrine as it is now in Hindustan, and Jesus must have been acquainted with it. This we must believe on two grounds: first, that he is claimed by the Christian to be the Son of God and full of all knowledge; and second, that he had received an education which permitted him to dispute with the doctors of divinity. The theory of reincarnation was very old at the time, and the Old Testament books show this to be so.
"Proverbs" gives the doctrine where Solomon says he was with the Creator from the beginning and that then his (Solomon's) delights were with the sons of men and in the habitable parts of the earth. This disposes of the explanation that he meant he existed in the foreknowledge of the Creator, by the use of the sentences detailing his life on the earth and with men. Then again Elias and many other famous men were to actually return, and all the people were from time to time expecting them. Adam was held to have reincarnated to carry on the work he began so badly, and Seth, Moses, and others were reincarnated as different great persons of subsequent epochs. The land is an oriental one, and the orientals always held the doctrine of the rebirth of mortals. It was not always referred to in respect to the common man who died and was reborn, but came up prominently when the names of great prophets, seers, and legislators were mentioned. If readers will consult any well educated Jew who is not "reformed," they will gain much information on this national doctrine.
Coming now to the time of Jesus, all the foregoing has a bearing on what he said. And, of course, if what he said does not agree with the view of the church, then the church view must be given up or we will be guilty of doubting the wisdom of Jesus and his ability to conduct a great movement. This, indeed, is the real position of the Church, for it has promulgated dogmas and condemned doctrines wholly without any authority, and some that Jesus held himself it has put its anathema upon.
When there was brought into the presence of Jesus a man who was born blind, the disciples naturally wondered why he had thus been punished by the Almighty, and asked Jesus whether the man was thus born blind for some sin he had committed, or one done by his parents. The question was put by them with the doctrine of reincarnation fully accepted, for it is obvious the man must have lived before, in their estimation, in order to have done sin for which he was then punished. Now if the doctrine was wrong and pernicious, as the church has declared it to be by anathematizing it, Jesus must have known it to be wrong, and then was the time for him to deny the whole theory and explode it, as well as definitely putting his seal of condemnation upon it for all time. Yet he did not do so; he waived it then and said the blindness was for other reasons in that case. It was not a denial of it. (See November Forum.1)
But again when John the Baptist, who had, so to say, ordained Jesus to his ministry, was killed by the ruler of the country, the news was brought to Jesus, and he then distinctly affirmed the doctrine of reincarnation. Hence his waiving the matter in the case of the blind man is shown to have been no refusal to credit the theory. Jesus affirmed the doctrine, and also affirmed the old ideas in relation to the return to earth of the prophets by saying that the ruler had killed John not knowing that he, John, was Elias "who was for to come."
On another occasion the same subject arose between Jesus and the disciples when they were talking about the coming of a messenger before Jesus himself. The disciples did not understand, and said that Elias was to come first as the messenger, and Jesus distinctly replied that Elias had come already in the person called John the Baptist. This time, if any, was the time for Jesus to condemn the doctrine, but, on the contrary, he boldly asserts it and teaches it, or rather shows its application to certain individuals, as was most interesting and instructive for the disciples who had not enough insight to be able to tell who any man was in his real immortal nature. But Jesus, being a seer, could look into the past and tell them just what historical character any one had been. And so he gave them details about John, and we must suppose more particulars were gone into than have come down to us in the writings naturally incomplete and confessed to be but a partial narrative of the doings and sayings of Jesus.
It must now be evident that there is a diametrical disagreement between the church and Jesus. The church has cursed the doctrine he taught. Which is right? The true believer in Jesus must reply that Jesus is; the church will say it is right by acting on that line. For if the doctrine be taught, then all men are put on an equal basis, and hence the power of the human rulers of heaven and earth is at once weakened. Such an important doctrine as this is one that Jesus could not afford to pass over. And if it is wrong, then it was his duty to condemn it: indeed, we must suppose that he would have done so were it not entirely right. And as he went further, even to the extent of affirming it, then it stands with his seal of approval for all time.
John the Revealer believed it of course, and so in his book we find the verse saying that the voice of the Almighty declared that the man who overcame should "go out no more" from heaven. This is mere rhetoric if reincarnation be denied; it is quite plain as a doctrine if we construe it to mean that the man who by constant struggle and many lives at last overcomes the delusions of matter will have no need to go out into life any more, but from that time will be a pillar, what the Theosophist knows as "Dhyan Chohan" forevermore. And this is exactly the old and oriental doctrine on the point.
St. Paul also gives the theory of reincarnation in his epistles where he refers to the cases of Jacob and Esau, saying that the Lord loved the one and hated the other before they were born. It is obvious that the Lord cannot love or hate a non-existing thing, and that this means that Jacob and Esau had been in their former lives respectively good and bad and therefore the Lord--or Karma loved the one and hated the other before their birth as the men known as Jacob and Esau. And Paul was here speaking of the same event that the older prophet Malachi spoke of in strict adherence to the prevalent idea. Following Paul and the disciples came the early fathers of the church, and many of them taught the same. Origen was the greatest of them. He gave the doctrine specifically, and it was because of the influence of his ideas that the Council of Constantinople 500 years after Jesus saw fit to condemn the whole thing as pernicious. This condemnation worked because the fathers were ignorant men, most of them Gentiles who did not care for old doctrines and, indeed, hated them. So it fell out of the public teaching and was at last lost to the Western world. But it must revive, for it is one of the founder's own beliefs, and as it gives a permanent and forceful basis for ethics it is really the most important of all the Theosophical doctrines. -- WILLIAM BREHON -- Path, December, 1892 -- http://www.blavatsky.net/judge/arts/ReincarnationInTheBible.htm
Sylvia Cranston is a leading expert on reincarnation with decades of study and research on this subject and on Theosophy. In her book, "Reincarnation: The Phoenix Fire Mystery" Cranston gives us the classic and best anthology of the subject. It is a massive encyclopedic annotated collection from the traditions of the world and from philosophy and science. A very interesting and important book to have on the shelf. |
This book, "Reincarnation: A New Horizon in Science Religion and Society", synthesizes Sylvia Cranston's decades of experience in the field. She knows the questions on people's minds and addresses those questions. |
"Many Lives, Many Masters" by Brian Weiss M.D. is a gripping real-life story. It touches the heart and the intuition and is inspirational. Brian Weiss M.D. was a successful practicing traditional psychotherapist. In one case his hypnotic regression of a patient began to reveal a past life. Numerous sessions and discoveries followed. Following along with the experience, one recognizes that reincarnation is certainly true and one gains some knowledge of this mystery along the way. |
