--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > Instead what we get is the dogma that iron-age Indians believed > > it so it's true, and worse, now it gets mixed up with victorian > > parlour room seances. Can no-one else spot the contradiction? You > > can't have life after death AND re-incarnation, otherwise you'd > > be talking to someone who's just been born. It makes no sense. > > While I agree most heartily with the rest of your coffee > rant, the above is based on a misunderstanding of the > notion of reincarnation and the supposed mechanics thereof. > > I don't think that any tradition on the planet that believes > in reincarnation believes that it's "instantaneous," and > that the death of one body is followed by immediate incarnation > in another. There's a "gap," discussed at length in Tibetan > traditions, called the Bardo, a kind of self-defined purgatory > in which the soul-in-transit works through some of its own > lingering issues prior to rebirth. In the Tibetan tradition, > this Bardo period can take a lot longer than nine months to > go on -- sometimes years. Also, there is no perceived problem > with a being *in the Bardo* appearing to the living on some > astral or astral-like plane -- as a ghost, disembodied voice, > etc. > > I am *not* declaring these things true. I'm "doing a Judy" > and pointing out that the declaration above is a bit of a > straw man, in that it's refuting reincarnation using a > definition of it that no believer in reincarnation would > ever put forward.
Fair enough, I stand corrected. That people can talk to the dead (and get a reply) is one of my hot buttons, I've seen too many obviously fraudulent mediums giving what I see as a cynical and false hope to the recently bereaved to give them any house room, it's basically *so* desperately uncon- vincing that the only mechanism I can see for their continued success is that people really need something to hold onto. It can't be a healthy way to grieve. I remember hearing bloody Doris Stokes on the radio once she had a caller saying her mum had died after suffering altzheimers for many years and did she have a message for her, Doris said yes she was there and much happier now she had passed on, the caller asked how her dementia had improved and Doris said she'd gone back in time to before she had it. Next caller had lost a child soon after birth and asked if she had been in touch, Doris said yes she was all grown up now and happy in the afterlife. If only it made some sort of sense! I felt sick listening to it, Stokes was a charlatan of the very highest order, and she wasn't even remotely convincing yet she made a fortune. Ought to be laws against it, in fact there is but no-one has been tried even though it would be a landmark for justice. I think we should hang them all and use ouija boards to ask how they feel about it, if there is a life after death and it's a good place to be no-one will complain! There see what I mean, I get carried away, shall go have an ice cream and a nice lie down in the garden.....
