readoldthings (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
readoldthings) wrote2023-11-20 09:58 am
readoldthings) wrote2023-11-20 09:58 am
Entry tags:
The Metaphysics of Reincarnation, Part 1 of Many
Reincarnation
There are some questions in human life that admit of two nonconensurable answers of which every person seems disposed by temperament to pick one and only one. Speaking on one of these questions, Coleridge once famously remarked that
Every man is born an Aristotelian or a Platonist. I do not think it possible that anyone born an Aristotelian can become a Platonist; and I am sure that no born Platonist can ever change into an Aristotelian.
On the everyday level, it also seems to be the case that every man (and woman) is born a cat person or a dog person. Cat people like all, or nearly all cats, and if they like any dogs they do so on an individual basis; dog people like dogs in general, and may or may not like this or that cat. That is to say, cat people like the species "cat," with which, on a certain level, they identify; dog people like the species "dog" in the same way. If a dog person likes a cat, he likes it for its individual qualities (which often include being somewhat doglike). Tangentially, this is also the way that a dog person likes human beings-- not as a species, but individually.
Given the theory of transmigration of souls, which claims that each of us passes through successive animal incarnations before arriving at the level of the human being; and given the large populations of both dogs and cats and their proximity to human beings; it's tempting to wonder whether cat people are in fact human beings who lived many previous lives as cats, while dog people rose to humanity through the ranks of dogs. Whether or not this is the case, it brings us neatly to the thing I actually want to talk about today, which is the nature of reincarnation. For reincarnation is another one of these questions on which people tend to fall on one side or the other. Those who don't believe in it generally can't believe in it, while those who do believe in it often find that they can't believe otherwise.
What I'd like to do in this post-- which is likely to turn into several-- is to go into more detail on the doctrine of reincarnation or the transmigration of souls in the Western tradition, including the question of precisely what reincarnates and how it does so; objections to the doctrine; and whether there is a secret tradition of reincarnation within Christianity and other traditions which explicitly reject it.
Reincarnation in Plato
Plato taught the theory of reincarnation in many of his dialogues, including Meno, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic, Timaeus, Statesman and Laws. Of these, the Phaedo and Republic give the most extensive treatments of the topic. Let's look at what he has to say in these.
In the Phaedo, Plato has Socrates, facing execution, give an account of the fate of souls after death.
When the dead arrive at the place to which the genius of each severally guides them, first of all, they have sentence passed upon them, as they have lived well and piously or not. And those who appear to have lived neither well nor ill, go to the river Acheron, and embarking in any vessels which they may find, are carried in them to the lake, and there they dwell and are purified of their evil deeds, and having suffered the penalty of the wrongs which they have done to others, they are absolved, and receive the rewards of their good deeds, each of them according to his deserts. But those who appear to be incurable by reason of the greatness of their crimes—who have committed many and terrible deeds of sacrilege, murders foul and violent, or the like—such are hurled into Tartarus which is their suitable destiny, and they never come out. Those again who have committed crimes, which, although great, are not irremediable—who in a moment of anger, for example, have done violence to a father or a mother, and have repented for the remainder of their lives, or, who have taken the life of another under the like extenuating circumstances—these are plunged into Tartarus, the pains of which they are compelled to undergo for a year, but at the end of the year the wave casts them forth—mere homicides by way of Cocytus, parricides and matricides by Pyriphlegethon—and they are borne to the Acherusian lake, and there they lift up their voices and call upon the victims whom they have slain or wronged, to have pity on them, and to be kind to them, and let them come out into the lake. And if they prevail, then they come forth and cease from their troubles; but if not, they are carried back again into Tartarus and from thence into the rivers unceasingly, until they obtain mercy from those whom they have wronged: for that is the sentence inflicted upon them by their judges. Those too who have been pre-eminent for holiness of life are released from this earthly prison, and go to their pure home which is above, and dwell in the purer earth; and of these, such as have duly purified themselves with philosophy live henceforth altogether without the body, in mansions fairer still which may not be described, and of which the time would fail me to tell.
Some of these ideas are familiar from the Christian tradition. We have a pure home in the World Above, in which the good find release from earthly existence; we also have a dark world far, far below, into which the wicked are hurled, never to return. But we also have a middle realm, which is the Underworld as we usually think of it-- that is, Hades or the World of the Dead. This is not the same as Tartarus, the place into which those who commit massacres and sacrileges are cast. We are told in Homer's Iliad, in fact, that Tartarus is as far below Hades as our Earth is below Heaven. It thus forms a kind of middle term in the possible afterlives, for all of us who are not quite good enough for Heaven nor bad enough for Hell. Here the wicked are purified of their misdeeds, but after this receive their just reward. The presence of the middle term is important, as we shall see; it is one of the important differences between the thought of Plato and that of his wayward pupil Aristotle. And as we shall also see, Christianity for its first millennium followed Plato in most things, but Aristotle in this. Notice, too, that there are two more middle terms, between the middle term itself and the extremes. Some among the worst are indeed cast into Tartarus, but after a year of torment they are given a chance to repent of their crimes. If their victims forgive them, they are allowed into the pleasant part of the Underworld, with everyone else; if not they must continue to undergo suffering and purification until they are forgiven. And note well-- it is not by God that they beg forgiveness, but those whom they have wronged. This idea is something that, from what I can tell, was totally lost in later traditions. Finally, we are told that those who have followed the disciplines of philosophy will be conducted to Heaven and never have to return to the Earth, but that they are are others will sojourn in Heaven for a time, and again descend.
So far, then, we have five possible conditions for a spirit after death: 1. Tartarus; 2. Tartarus temporarily; 3. Hades; 4. Heaven temporarily; 5. Heaven. To this list we might possibly add a sixth, potentially the same as the third, which is a kind of ghost, so attached to the physical form that it wanders about graveyards until the time comes for it to return to incarnation. Of all of these, groups 2, 3, 4 and 6 can all expect to return to incarnation in a body:
After death, as they say, the genius of each individual, to whom he belonged in life, leads him to a certain place in which the dead are gathered together, whence after judgment has been given they pass into the world below, following the guide, who is appointed to conduct them from this world to the other: and when they have there received their due and remained their time, another guide brings them back again after many revolutions of ages.
Those who return to earthly incarnation return to a form suited to the life that they previously lived: Socrates: Men who have followed after gluttony, and wantonness, and drunkenness, and have had no thought of avoiding them, would pass into asses and animals of that sort. What do you think?
Cebes: I think such an opinion to be exceedingly probable.
Socrates: And those who have chosen the portion of injustice, and tyranny, and violence, will pass into wolves, or into hawks and kites;—whither else can we suppose them to go?
Cebes: Yes....
Socrates: Some are happier than others; and the happiest both in themselves and in the place to which they go are those who have practised the civil and social virtues which are called temperance and justice, and are acquired by habit and attention without philosophy and mind.
...they may be expected to pass into some gentle and social kind which is like their own, such as bees or wasps or ants, or back again into the form of man, and just and moderate men may be supposed to spring from them.
This treatment of the subject in the Phaedo is the most extensive in all of Plato's works, and fittingly, since the Phaedo is entirely concerned with death. In the Republic we are given a brief summary of the same, but with the added detail that the Dead are given the opportunity to choose what life they will live upon return to Earth. This is very much a mixed blessing, as many, without thinking, choose lives which appear good but which lead them to disaster:
...he who had the first choice came forward and in a moment chose the greatest tyranny; his mind having been darkened by folly and sensuality, he had not thought out the whole matter before he chose, and did not at first sight perceive that he was fated, among other evils, to devour his own children. But when he had time to reflect, and saw what was in the lot, he began to beat his breast and lament over his choice, forgetting the proclamation of the prophet; for, instead of throwing the blame of his misfortune on himself, he accused chance and the gods, and everything rather than himself. Now he was one of those who came from heaven, and in a former life had dwelt in a well-ordered State, but his virtue was a matter of habit only, and he had no philosophy.
And so we see that the system of reincarnation given by Plato is somewhat similar to that in Tibetan Buddhism. The ultimate goal of the spiritual life is to attain release from incarnation. This is done through the practice of philosophy, a word which we should understand similarly to the Sanskrit word yoga. Failing that, a temporary sojourn in the Heavenly realms or in the more pleasant part of the Underworld is possible for those who are relatively virtuous. Following a time spent in the spiritual worlds, most of us return to incarnation, and the specific form we take is determined in more ways than one by the life we lived previously.
Tomorrow we will talk about reincarnation elsewhere in the Graeco-Roman traditions, including in Pythagoras and Virgil, and hopefully come to Aristotle's objections to the doctrine.
Steve's Note
I've been neglecting this blog lately because my time has been limited. Last week I started several posts but ran out of time. This week and from henceforward I hope, I'm simply going to post whatever I have completed, even if it means cutting off in the middle of a sentence. See you tomorrow!
no subject
On that snippet from Phaedo, I'm reminded of the first substantial set of teachings on reincarnation I ever received (this made a lasting impression and was something I simply couldn't unlearn). I believe the teachers synthesized ideas from the Western esoteric tradition with the yogic lineage they were students of. Anyway, in the lecture on "life, death, and reincarnation", they explained that the vast majority of human souls have very little say on what their next life will be like (immature souls will too-likely chose a life of wealth, luxury, and cheap thrills). Beings they called "Recording Angels" do much of the work when it comes to lining up karmically-suitable rebirths for the soul in question. These beings sound a lot like the Norns of Norse mythology, or like the Lords of Karma from CosDoc. It's only when the soul gains an advanced level of maturation and knowledge they can get begin to partake in the process of choosing their next incarnations. I think Plato's tale perfectly illustrates precisely why it is a foolish idea for immature souls to pick their next lives; the tale seems like a warning, illustrated by a rather unfortunate "what if" scenario.
Now he was one of those who came from heaven, and in a former life had dwelt in a well-ordered State, but his virtue was a matter of habit only, and he had no philosophy.
In the aforementioned lecture, a vivid example is given of a soul who has been a pious Christian and thus very religious and morally-focused throughout their past few lives, yet hasn't cultivated any real spiritual wisdom or esoteric knowledge. They get into their idealized "Christian heaven" afterlife realm, reside in a blissful state there for quite some time, yet after a certain duration they begin to get bored, due to all the latent desires of the material world that's still very much a part of their soul and overall karmic profile. Eventually these desires exert a gravitational pull on the soul, which results in the rebirth phase kicking into gear and birth into a karmically-suitable human body/life being the end result. If that soul is to cultivate something more substantial than mere moral development (i.e. the need for meat for men, not just milk for babes, they will require a meatier spiritual path, i.e. some combination of occultism, philosophy, and mysticism.
Overall, I'm reminded of some remarks JMG has made about the parallel paths of moral and mental development the soul must undergo. Luckily, we're in a situation now where there's multiple avenues to explore wrt to both of these types of development; there's many cruddy and soul-crushing things when it comes to the era we now live in, but one of the great advantages is the plethora of spiritual options now available to us here in the modern West. In a time and place where dogmatic monotheism is the only game in town and is forced on everyone at the point of a sword, this isn't so; spiritual options are very limited. I think the buffet table we know have in front of us is something to be very thankful for, even with the dangers of "choice paralysis" that is sometimes a downside of this sort of opportunity.
Whichever way our culture proceeds, I do really hope that the availability of reincarnation teachings is something that sticks.
no subject
Worth noting perhaps that some Jewish traditions espouses the notion of "gilgul," or the Wheel, which is a kind of reincarnation (thus perhaps the "Who do you say that I am" passage, in which some regard Christ as perhaps an incarnation of older prophets).
Axé
no subject
When I set out on my currently-paused venture to read Plato's dialogues in Iamblichus's order (at your recommendation, incidentally), I followed your advice to start with Republic, and I was shocked, shocked to discover that it ended with a detailed discussion of reincarnation and that I had no idea that was something the most famous work of Western philosophy handled at all.
What was even funnier was that when I tried to look up what scholars thought about this bit (surely it's just me that didn't know about this and everyone else has discussed it as much to death as everything else in Plato), I discovered that there was very little scholarly writing I could find on the subject, and honestly, one of the better discussions came from Philosophy Bro here: https://www.philosophybro.com/archive/platos-the-myth-of-er-a-summary?rq=plato
(Aside: Philosophy Bro is actually pretty good. His rendition of Plato's Apology is hilarious, but pretty spot on.)
Anyway, what I found was a bizarre insistence by scholars to insist on reading Republic as primitive political science, which a) makes it seem like they skipped the entire introduction, and b) led them to utterly ignore this inconveniently weird bit of theology at the end. I did find one article that made a credible argument about how "The Myth of Er" explains the importance of cultivating virtue and philosophy to be able to make decisions under uncertainty, which, sure, true, but left the author arguing that Plato brought in reincarnation as a long, elaborate, strained metaphor (not that Plato/Socrates wouldn't do that, mind you, I mean, look at the dialogue we're talking about here). None of the authors I found seemed to even consider the possibility that maybe Plato/Socrates was sharing a good faith account of how life and the afterlife might actually work, and that you might want to take it into account when figuring out what to do with yourself.
Anyhow, it amused/frustrated me, and I figured this audience would be one of the few places where that feeling might resonate!
no subject
Yeah, this is one of the most irritating, but in a way also the most interesting, parts of reading Plato: The way that "scholars" have gone out of their way for 200 years to deliberately misunderstand him. The Republic contains some of the most important spiritual teachings in the history of the Western world, but if you read
That's why I also recommend to people that when you buy a collection of Plato's writings, as you'll inevitably need to, ignore any introductory essays that come with it. The only exception is if these are written by Thomas Taylor, which is only going to happen if you shill out the money for Taylor's translations. But in most cases, the introductions are worse than useless.
None other than C.S. Lewis himself commented on this issue. In a talk given to Anglican clergy on contemporary misinterpretation of the Gospels, he remarked that he had been inoculated against them by seeing that the same bad hermeneutics applied to Plato's writings:
I used to find this all fairly irritating. Lately, though, I'm starting to find it fascinating. Whitehead's remark that "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" is well known. Even people who don't like Plato understand his importance. So why is it that we've done our best to ignore the things he actually said? It really looks like desperation.
no subject