• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

Mother reincarnated as granddaughter?

Orlinda

New Member
Hello, I am so happy to find this forum. Lately I’ve been questioning is it possible for my deceased mother ( over 40 years) to come back as my granddaughter?
I lost my mother over 40 years to domestic violence, she was nine months pregnant, and I was nine years old. I now have two grandchildren the youngest is one. I love both grandkids with all my heart, but I must say there is something different about the one year old. My first time holding her when she was 3 weeks old, she stared at me and winked one of her eyes at me. My son and I both were shocked and laughed about it. However to be a baby, her learning skills seem incredibly sharp, it’s like she’s been here before, She also hums when she eats. My mother use to hum when she ate nobody knows that but me. She now looks a lot like my mother, she even has long hair like my mother. She has always given direct eye contact to me since 3 weeks old and now she gravitates toward me, and she seems so happy to see me whenever I visit. Is it possible for reincarnation or does she have some of the same characteristics as my mother.
 

Attachments

  • 11EFC49C-06CB-40E3-9AD5-604B6F6A9B46.jpeg
    11EFC49C-06CB-40E3-9AD5-604B6F6A9B46.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 7
Hi Orlinda,

It is entirely possible. = )

For both!

What a beautiful photo. Welcome to the forum.

You'll find we're all discovering a much larger concept of family than we realize. God works in mysterious ways, and it does the heart good.
 
Hi Orlinda,

As one grandparent to another: Congratulations on your beautiful granddaughters! ;)

Cordially,
S&S
 
Hello, I am so happy to find this forum. Lately I’ve been questioning is it possible for my deceased mother ( over 40 years) to come back as my granddaughter?
I lost my mother over 40 years to domestic violence, she was nine months pregnant, and I was nine years old. I now have two grandchildren the youngest is one. I love both grandkids with all my heart, but I must say there is something different about the one year old. My first time holding her when she was 3 weeks old, she stared at me and winked one of her eyes at me. My son and I both were shocked and laughed about it. However to be a baby, her learning skills seem incredibly sharp, it’s like she’s been here before, She also hums when she eats. My mother use to hum when she ate nobody knows that but me. She now looks a lot like my mother, she even has long hair like my mother. She has always given direct eye contact to me since 3 weeks old and now she gravitates toward me, and she seems so happy to see me whenever I visit. Is it possible for reincarnation or does she have some of the same characteristics as my mother.
There is no doubt that she was previously your mother. Please note that reincarnation can only occur in your own bloodline. we cannot be reincarnated from another family lineage that is not related to us by blood.
 
There is no doubt that she was previously your mother. Please note that reincarnation can only occur in your own bloodline. we cannot be reincarnated from another family lineage that is not related to us by blood.
Hi Skyline,

Your position is interesting, but--if I am understanding you correctly--it is by no means held by most or even very many of those interested in or studying reincarnation (at least to my knowledge).

Plus, though I have heard something like this this stated on the Board before, it was not used in the sense that you seem to be using it, as requiring reincarnation only to lineal descendants (though I think this may be a common belief among some indigenous peoples).

I have usually heard it stated as a "lineage" requirement applying to collateral lines as well, seemingly, without limitation (such that reincarnation was possible in any line that could be genealogically/genetically connected via a distant common ancestor).

Of course, the latter position raises the question of how far back that common ancestor might be, as we may all ultimately trace our lineage to the same common ancestors.

Cordially,
S&S
 
Hi Skyline,

Your position is interesting, but--if I am understanding you correctly--it is by no means held by most or even very many of those interested in or studying reincarnation (at least to my knowledge).

Plus, though I have heard something like this this stated on the Board before, it was not used in the sense that you seem to be using it, as requiring reincarnation only to lineal descendants (though I think this may be a common belief among some indigenous peoples).

I have usually heard it stated as a "lineage" requirement applying to collateral lines as well, seemingly, without limitation (such that reincarnation was possible in any line that could be genealogically/genetically connected via a distant common ancestor).

Of course, the latter position raises the question of how far back that common ancestor might be, as we may all ultimately trace our lineage to the same common ancestors.

Cordially,
S&S
Hi SeaAndSky,

Thank you for your response. maybe you have a point. but I state that because I believe that there is a law of KARMA that applies to humans, and reincarnation is closely related to the law of karma. What I mean is, KARMA can only be inherited through bloodline, so we can only be reincarnated through our own bloodline to inherit KARMA that has been done by our predecessors. we cannot bear KARMA from other bloodlines. we can only bear it from our own bloodline.

Regardless of whatever religion one adheres to or whatever custom one believes in, everyone still experiences things called Deja vu, Dreams and Reincarnation. Of these 3 things, reincarnation is very closely related to the law of KARMA, and is also interconnected with each other.
 
What I mean is, KARMA can only be inherited through bloodline, so we can only be reincarnated through our own bloodline to inherit KARMA that has been done by our predecessors. we cannot bear KARMA from other bloodlines. we can only bear it from our own bloodline.
Hi Skyline,

What is the basis for this statement? I can think of at least one Old Testament passage that might be interpreted to support such a proposition, but it would be a bit of a stretch. Also, the restrictions this imposes are fairly staggering. For example, a whole lot of the folks, especially in the West, end up without children. So, there are no lineal blood descendants to incarnate into and to "inherit KARMA"--as you put it--what happens in such cases? Are such people barred from reincarnation due to their lack of descendants? Likewise, there have always been those who never married, or chose the life of a renunciant as a monk or nun of some type, etc. Are these, likewise, closed off from further reincarnation?

Cordially,
S&S

PS--I also don't recall any restrictions of this type when studying reincarnation doctrines related to "Karma" in association with Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.--so I'm very curious in terms of where this idea came from. I'm not totally opposed to some type of bloodline restrictions, though I don't have any proof for the proposition. However, restriction of reincarnation to one's blood descendants seems too narrow to be workable to me. Still, I remain eager to understand where you are coming from on this.
PPS--I don't recall anything of this type in terms of Catharism, which I have also studied, but it has a bit of a Cathar "flavor" to it--though they would not have used a term such as "Karma".
PPPS--BTW, I think that most people assume that their personal Karma travels with them as a soul/person to any bloodline they enter via reincarnation, rather than traveling down their last family line to "meet them" later in a subsequent family incarnation.
 
Last edited:
I can think of at least one Old Testament passage that might be interpreted to support such a proposition, but it would be a bit of a stretch.
I'm not sure, but I do know of one verse that basically says the opposite.

Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Oh and btw I personally don't believe in karma. Unfortunately, I have seen way too many bad people get away scot-free and I have seen way too many good people suffer for no reason.
 
I'm not sure, but I do know of one verse that basically says the opposite.

Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Oh and btw I personally don't believe in karma. Unfortunately, I have seen way too many bad people get away scot-free and I have seen way too many good people suffer for no reason.
Hi Melon,

I am also not big on Karma, at least not in the way that most seem to use it--which seems to be one big debit and credit ledger as well as (for most) seeming to require an eye for an eye payment for past wrongs. But, this does not IMO bar adverse or positive consequences flowing from our action/inaction.

I am familiar with Ezekiel 18:20, and consider it to be a balancing scripture for several other OT scriptures:

Exodus 20[5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exodus 34[7] Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Numbers 14[18] The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Deuteronomy 5[9] Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,


The foregoing are the very definition of "hard" scriptures IMO. Yet, strangely enough, Skyline's idea might (IMO) be workable in the context of Jewish Gilgul ideas, which seem to posit that Jews will continue to (normatively at least) reincarnate as Jews. "IF" one assumes family reincarnation as well, plus a difference of meaning between the two opposing groups of scripture, such that the Ezekiel scripture refers to pure physical descent and the ones I have quoted refer to in-family soul descent (i.e., reincarnation) of the guilty individual within the family, then both can seemingly stand. :cool:

I know that my remarks are really "stretching" things, :rolleyes: but . . . . hey, just trying to think of some kind of basis for Skyline's position (even if very limited). ;)

Cordially,
S&S
 
Hi Skyline,

What is the basis for this statement? I can think of at least one Old Testament passage that might be interpreted to support such a proposition, but it would be a bit of a stretch. Also, the restrictions this imposes are fairly staggering. For example, a whole lot of the folks, especially in the West, end up without children. So, there are no lineal blood descendants to incarnate into and to "inherit KARMA"--as you put it--what happens in such cases? Are such people barred from reincarnation due to their lack of descendants? Likewise, there have always been those who never married, or chose the life of a renunciant as a monk or nun of some type, etc. Are these, likewise, closed off from further reincarnation?

Cordially,
S&S

PS--I also don't recall any restrictions of this type when studying reincarnation doctrines related to "Karma" in association with Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.--so I'm very curious in terms of where this idea came from. I'm not totally opposed to some type of bloodline restrictions, though I don't have any proof for the proposition. However, restriction of reincarnation to one's blood descendants seems too narrow to be workable to me. Still, I remain eager to understand where you are coming from on this.
PPS--I don't recall anything of this type in terms of Catharism, which I have also studied, but it has a bit of a Cathar "flavor" to it--though they would not have used a term such as "Karma".
PPPS--BTW, I think that most people assume that their personal Karma travels with them as a soul/person to any bloodline they enter via reincarnation, rather than traveling down their last family line to "meet them" later in a subsequent family incarnation.
Hi SeaAndSky,

There is no prohibition against them being reincarnated. If someone who does not have children or does not have a lineage, including ascetics, monks, nuns, also includes people who died at a young age, or as a teenager, or children or who have not yet had a lineage but have died beforehand, they will still reincarnated back through the bloodline where they were born before.

either they will be reborn through their father's or mother's bloodline (if they are an only child), and if they have siblings who have offspring then they will be reincarnated through their bloodline, which means they still carry the same KARMA.
 
Hi SeaAndSky,

There is no prohibition against them being reincarnated. If someone who does not have children or does not have a lineage, including ascetics, monks, nuns, also includes people who died at a young age, or as a teenager, or children or who have not yet had a lineage but have died beforehand, they will still reincarnated back through the bloodline where they were born before.

either they will be reborn through their father's or mother's bloodline (if they are an only child), and if they have siblings who have offspring then they will be reincarnated through their bloodline, which means they still carry the same KARMA.
I don't agree with your belief at all. Bloodlines and DNA are physical things. Souls are not physical. They are not chained to certain bloodlines that exist on earth.
 
Hi SeaAndSky,

There is no prohibition against them being reincarnated. If someone who does not have children or does not have a lineage, including ascetics, monks, nuns, also includes people who died at a young age, or as a teenager, or children or who have not yet had a lineage but have died beforehand, they will still reincarnated back through the bloodline where they were born before.

either they will be reborn through their father's or mother's bloodline (if they are an only child), and if they have siblings who have offspring then they will be reincarnated through their bloodline, which means they still carry the same KARMA.
Hi Skyline,

Hmm. So, are you saying that this alternate pattern exists only if they are without descendants of their own, or is it in addition to reincarnating to their own descendants? Where did these rules come from? So far you have not specified a source for your rules/beliefs, or even provided coherent reasoning, supporting any of the rules you are setting forth. I'm not trying to blast you, I'm just confused. If you believe Karma is something that is passed down via lineal descendants that would seem to assume that it passed through or via the flesh rather like an electrical current is conducted by a copper wire--or am I misunderstanding you? Likewise, it seems to me that an argument could be made from the scriptures I set forth above, but this does not seem to be where you are coming from.

Once again, I am really interested in understanding what you have to say--but you seem to be hesitant to actually set forth any supporting authorities or tangible basis for your ideas.

Cordially,
S&S
 
Last edited:
I am neither hesitant here nor accepting of the belief that one can only incarnate into specific bloodlines, due to Karma existing in the specific way you seem to believe. That's all you are doing, too--stating your beliefs based on "rules" you believe to be true.

I have read hundreds of metaphysical books, and while souls can incarnate into the same families again, as Carol showed in her second book, doing so is certainly not the norm, and certainly not the way reincarnation works from what I have read.That is my personal opinion and belief, and I don't need to back it up with all sorts of "evidence" or information you find acceptable.

You don't know for sure what happens after death anymore than I do, or anymore than anyone else here. You may believe how you want, as we all do, but it's naive to think how you see things is how everyone should see things, or that you will not change your mind about the matter in future years. Is that coherent enough? Or am I confused about where you are coming from?
Hi Sunday,

Is your post directed to me or to Skyline?

Cordially,
S&S
 
Hi Sunday,

Is your post directed to me or to Skyline?

Cordially,
S&S
Sorry, all the "S" names have confused me. 🙃 It was directed at Skyline, but now have deleted it since she wasn't the one who posted it. It must have been seeing it on the cell phone that caused me to see it incorrectly. I'm not sure why, though, I strangely saw the reply as directed to me. I must have thought since I got a notifcation about a reply in the thread, it was a reply for me, like what occurs at Disqus, not a notification that another post had been made. I haven't been a regular here in a long time. No more cell phone replies! Sorry for the mistake. You and I have appear to have compatible beliefs here.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, all the "S" names have confused me. 🙃 It was directed at Skyline, but now have deleted it since she wasn't the one who posted it. It must have been seeing it on the cell phone that caused me to see it incorrectly. I'm not sure why, though, I strangely saw the reply as directed to me. No more cell phone replies! Sorry for the mistake. You and I have appear to have compatible beliefs here.
Hi Sunday,

These things happen, so no need for apologies. ;) I also think you are correct in terms of the compatibility of our beliefs--broadly speaking. I.e., I am not on board with Skyline in most respects; however, I am not really sure I am on-board for typical Eastern Karma ideas either. I find both to be a bit too narrow and restrictive in terms of my own research. Nonetheless, I do see our actions as having consequences, in this life or after, though I am not big on the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" approach. I also prefer to avoid the term "karma" when possible, if only because it carries a lot of "baggage" with it.

Likewise, though Skyline seems to have expanded his/her initial untenable position somewhat after questioning, I am still curious to find out why he/she takes this position at all. As previously noted, there are some groups that hold similar beliefs--so it could just be something "handed down" to Skyline culturally. If so, I am fine with that. If not, Skyline's reasoning and resources for this belief would be of interest to me, as I am always trying to expand my knowledge.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--Also, if there WERE a genealogical tie-in of some type, it would be possible to "check-off" another box in terms of confirming a possible PL. However, I can't see how this would work without some generational limitations. I.e., I can see going back--e.g. ten generations--and tracing all descendants from the very broad pool of possibilities in order to confirm that a putative PL fits into that pool. However, if there are no limitations, this technique would become useless as all humans seem to trace their ancestry back to a single parental pair--via African Eve or otherwise.
 
Hi Sunday,

These things happen, so no need for apologies. ;) I also think you are correct in terms of the compatibility of our beliefs--broadly speaking. I.e., I am not on board with Skyline in most respects; however, I am not really sure I am on-board for typical Eastern Karma ideas either. I find both to be a bit too narrow and restrictive in terms of my own research. Nonetheless, I do see our actions as having consequences, in this life or after, though I am not big on the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" approach. I also prefer to avoid the term "karma" when possible, if only because it carries a lot of "baggage" with it.

Likewise, though Skyline seems to have expanded his/her initial untenable position somewhat after questioning, I am still curious to find out why he/she takes this position at all. As previously noted, there are some groups that hold similar beliefs--so it could just be something "handed down" to Skyline culturally. If so, I am fine with that. If not, Skyline's reasoning and resources for this belief would be of interest to me, as I am always trying to expand my knowledge.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--Also, if there WERE a genealogical tie-in of some type, it would be possible to "check-off" another box in terms of confirming a possible PL. However, I can't see how this would work without some generational limitations. I.e., I can see going back--e.g. ten generations--and tracing all descendants from the very broad pool of possibilities in order to confirm that a putative PL fits into that pool. However, if there are no limitations, this technique would become useless as all humans seem to trace their ancestry back to a single parental pair--via African Eve or otherwise.
S&S, thanks for your understanding. :) Yes, I would like to know if Skyline finds the idea of incarnating into a family other than her own to be distasteful or distressing? If so, why? I've read of individuals who like to believe they are born back into the same religion or ethnic group, but I think at times that may be rooted in prejudices or pretentiousness. Or maybe they really love their current religion or ethnic group. Maybe there are those who really love their current families, and can't stand the thought of ever being separated from them.

Karma exists, I believe, but I have no idea how it works. Years ago, when I was active in this forum, I spent a lot more time thinking about such topics, and believing what I thought was true. No more, though. I think it is what it is and I really have no idea how it works; yet also don't believe if you did something harmful in a past life, you will be harmed the same way in your current life. That makes no sense if you are a totally different person in your current lifetime.

I think the idea that a DNA test can provide insights into past lives is a fascinating idea, but I don't particularly believe it does. The results are from a physical sample and souls aren't physical. My own results showed DNA from areas where I think I may have lived past lives, but not from other areas where I would bet I had a past life. Ancestry is also changing the results all the time! There's one thing about my DNA results that never gets changed or eliminated , however--I'm 1% European Jewish. I've always felt my last past life was a Jewish one in the Austria region, and I had a surprising amount of Germanic Europe DNA, too. But I deeply feel I had a Japanese past life and I had zero Japan or Asia DNA. :p

Sunday
 
Last edited:
Hi Sunday,

Since you mention the Jewish DNA, you may be interested to know more about the position of Mystic Judaism (Kabbalah) on the types of things we have been discussing. The first link is to a general article on reincarnation in the Old Testament, etc.:


The second touches on those "3rd and 4th generation" texts from a Kabbalah/Gilgul perspective:


Both articles are short, easy reads, and present what is to me a fairly coherent approach to reincarnation. That does not mean that I agree with everything, but as a Christian reincarnationist, I do find the Kabbalistic approach to reincarnation/gilgul to be interesting and confirm some of my own beliefs.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--Here is another one:
 
Hi Sunday,

Since you mention the Jewish DNA, you may be interested to know more about the position of Mystic Judaism (Kabbalah) on the types of things we have been discussing. The first link is to a general article on reincarnation in the Old Testament, etc.:


The second touches on those "3rd and 4th generation" texts from a Kabbalah/Gilgul perspective:


Both articles are short, easy reads, and present what is to me a fairly coherent approach to reincarnation. That does not mean that I agree with everything, but as a Christian reincarnationist, I do find the Kabbalistic approach to reincarnation/gilgul to be interesting and confirm some of my own beliefs.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--Here is another one:
Thanks for the article S&S. It's been a while since I've read anything about Kabbalah. I probably have unread books on it, too, on my Kindle. (I have lots of unread books on my Kindle.) It interests me that it is more common for Jews to be taught that they should not spend much or any time thinking about what happens after death. Jews traditionally think about everything . . . but not life after death.
 
Thanks for the article S&S. It's been a while since I've read anything about Kabbalah. I probably have unread books on it, too, on my Kindle. (I have lots of unread books on my Kindle.) It interests me that it is more common for Jews to be taught that they should not spend much or any time thinking about what happens after death. Jews traditionally think about everything . . . but not life after death.
Hi Sunday,

You have probably read more books on Kabbalah than I have. :rolleyes: But I do benefit from the brief forays I have made into the online literature. Also, your last sentence is very striking, and to me as a non-Jew is one of those facts that continues to "blow my mind" (as we used to say when I was a teenager). I've read a variety of explanations from Jewish sources, but none seems sufficient to me. Nonetheless, the relatively small number of Jewish scholars that do seem to dwell on these matters in depth via Kabbalah definitely seem to be an exception to that rule.

Cordially,
S&S
 
Hi Sunday,

You have probably read more books on Kabbalah than I have. :rolleyes: But I do benefit from the brief forays I have made into the online literature. Also, your last sentence is very striking, and to me as a non-Jew is one of those facts that continues to "blow my mind" (as we used to say when I was a teenager). I've read a variety of explanations from Jewish sources, but none seems sufficient to me. Nonetheless, the relatively small number of Jewish scholars that do seem to dwell on these matters in depth via Kabbalah definitely seem to be an exception to that rule.

Cordially,
S&S
Judaism doesn't agree on what happens after death, but that's because it focuses on the here and now.
 
Judaism doesn't agree on what happens after death, but that's because it focuses on the here and now.
Hi Melon,

There are a lot of religions that don't agree on what happens after death, at least not completely. And, there is nothing wrong with focusing on the here and now. Actually, I don't know of a religion that doesn't focus on the here and now as well. However, for the most part, they also focus on what happens after death. These two are not mutually exclusive. This is especially true, as most of the religions I am aware of see these two as intrinsically related, such that what we do here and now directly impacts what happens after death.

Cordially,
S&S
 
Orlinda, welcome to the forum. You are off to a great start with that precious soul who sounds like your previous mom. Sorry to hear the tragic past you had to witness at such a tender age. She could very well be your mom.....or not. I have long gaps between my reincarnated selves and no reference of dates or centuries. However I do feel I have danced from one century to the next and remember being female in all but one reincarnation. I remember being male once and could not relate at all to it. Did not go the gay route but was kind of a loner. I will tell you I so miss my family from other times. I believe my sister in law in this life was my sister in a past life. I think she felt it too. But I never brought up the subject because in this life we are too different. She is not the one I miss. I had an amazing father in another life (in two in fact). In this life I have a cold distant hyper critical father who always made me feel small and insignificant .My father is a classic narcissist who never cared about anyone but himself. So I am his polar opposite in every way. Luckily I have an amazing husband who nurtures that. Orlinda if that is your mom which it could be than you are so blessed to have her back in your life. I wish you all the best!!!
 
Hi Melon,

There are a lot of religions that don't agree on what happens after death, at least not completely. And, there is nothing wrong with focusing on the here and now. Actually, I don't know of a religion that doesn't focus on the here and now as well. However, for the most part, they also focus on what happens after death. These two are not mutually exclusive. This is especially true, as most of the religions I am aware of see these two as intrinsically related, such that what we do here and now directly impacts what happens after death.

Cordially,
S&S
I mean this as in the primary emphasis. Think about for example, Christianity and Islam focusing on going to heaven, or Buddhism focusing on reaching nirvana.

Proselytizing is forbidden in Judaism and while conversion IS possible, it is difficult. The "chosen people" thing isn't about superiority, but rather it means that Jews are the only people who are required to follow those laws. Gentiles are only required to follow the Noahide laws.
 
I mean this as in the primary emphasis. Think about for example, Christianity and Islam focusing on going to heaven, or Buddhism focusing on reaching nirvana.

Proselytizing is forbidden in Judaism and while conversion IS possible, it is difficult. The "chosen people" thing isn't about superiority, but rather it means that Jews are the only people who are required to follow those laws. Gentiles are only required to follow the Noahide laws.
Hi Melon,

I won't speak for anyone but Christians (and even doing that is pretty nervy), but living a godly life (and life on earth generally) is definitely just as much of an emphasis for Christians as the afterlife, etc. Actually, the earthly and heavenly are so inextricably tied together a division like this is virtually impossible.

There is an old saying used by Christians (in the U.S.) to describe someone who is too preoccupied with the next life and not attentive enough to the current one: "He's so heavenly minded that he is no earthly good!" I.e., it takes both (IMO, etc. etc.).

Cordially,
S&S
 
Hi Melon,

I won't speak for anyone but Christians (and even doing that is pretty nervy), but living a godly life (and life on earth generally) is definitely just as much of an emphasis for Christians as the afterlife, etc. Actually, the earthly and heavenly are so inextricably tied together a division like this is virtually impossible.

There is an old saying used by Christians (in the U.S.) to describe someone who is too preoccupied with the next life and not attentive enough to the current one: "He's so heavenly minded that he is no earthly good!" I.e., it takes both (IMO, etc. etc.).

Cordially,
S&S
I apologize if my description was way too simplified. I was just giving a general idea.
 
Hi Skyline,

Hmm. So, are you saying that this alternate pattern exists only if they are without descendants of their own, or is it in addition to reincarnating to their own descendants? Where did these rules come from? So far you have not specified a source for your rules/beliefs, or even provided coherent reasoning, supporting any of the rules you are setting forth. I'm not trying to blast you, I'm just confused. If you believe Karma is something that is passed down via lineal descendants that would seem to assume that it passed through or via the flesh rather like an electrical current is conducted by a copper wire--or am I misunderstanding you? Likewise, it seems to me that an argument could be made from the scriptures I set forth above, but this does not seem to be where you are coming from.

Once again, I am really interested in understanding what you have to say--but you seem to be hesitant to actually set forth any supporting authorities or tangible basis for your ideas.

Cordially,
S&S
Hi SeaAndSky

Well, let's just say this is an alternative pattern. but this was actually an absolute rule for those without bloodlines.

The reason or belief that makes me believe is, because Karma is hereditary sin/goodness, a person's good/bad actions in a past or current life that will determine or shape the good/bad of the next lineage. So Karma can only be inherited through bloodline, which is closely related to reincarnation.

Maybe this answer will raise more questions in your mind.
 
Hi Skyline,

Thanks for your response. But as you seem to suspect, it raises as many or more questions than it answers. You state:

Karma is hereditary sin/goodness, a person's good/bad actions in a past or current life that will determine or shape the good/bad of the next lineage. So Karma can only be inherited through bloodline, which is closely related to reincarnation.

Once again, I have to ask:

(1) is this a teaching you received as part of some tradition, ethnic, religious, cultural, religion or etc.? If so, can you give me a name for this tradition, etc. or a website so that I can look it up and find out more? and/or

(2) is this a teaching you received from a particular teacher or teachers? If so, can you give me a name for this teacher or teachers, or a website so that I can look it/them up and find out more? and/or

(3) is this a teaching you have derived on your own? If so, can you provide more specific reasons and reasoning for your conclusion above. In this regard, the most important principle you state is that: Karma is hereditary. This is stated as if it is a self-evident truth, without providing any antecedent reasoning. If you consider this to be self-evident without need of any further proof, please make that clear. OTOH, if you rely on a reason or reasons, chain of logical deductions, specific religious texts, and/or etc.--please state them with specificity.

(4) is this purely your own intuition. If so, please say so.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--Once again, I am very interested in your position. 🤔 I can see some possibilities for bloodline reincarnation, or at least can't totally discount it. However, I can only remember hearing it proposed by one other person in the past. But in the model he proposed (which I will call model 1), the bloodline would start with the first incarnation, allowing reincarnation thereafter in any of the lines of descent derived therefrom. Thus, in "model 1" the pool of available possibilities would normatively expand with each successive generation. In your model (which I will refer to as model 2) it appears that successive incarnations are normatively restricted to direct lineal descendants, and can only take place in a collateral line where they are absent, so what you are proposing appears to be a much more restricted version of model 1. However, I may be misunderstanding you on this. In either case, I still would like to know the answer to my questions above. (I never had a chance to follow up with with the person who proposed model 1, so I don't want to miss the chance now). ;)
 
Back
Top