Sep 10, 1995 06:56 AM
by Eldon B. Tucker
>Eldon you wrote that we choose to come into
Yes, but it is our essential desire for existence that leads
us into coming into being. We do not choose in the sense of
a person making a decision, because our personality of the
previous lifetime is gone and the personality of the future
lifetime is not yet formed.
>Our pre-incarnate life causes a choice or chance to
>become earth-bound. You also said that this was
>a Christian teaching.
The choice to come into existence is not unique to being born
on earth, but is true of any plane of existence.
>First why did I choose to enter into the conception
>of a man and a woman named Molly & Deke?
>Why did I not choose to be the child of Bill & Hillary?
"Choice" is a helpful word in understanding what is happening,
but it has its limits. We are drawn to suitable parents. Why
those particular parents? Because of karmic ties we have established
with them in former lifetimes. The word "choice" can be misleading,
because the process of coming into birth is as natural and
automatic as our taking a breath. We breathe becaue we must,
and we will do so often without thinking about it. But we also
"choose" to breathe. A strong desire for life leads to the natural
process of coming into birth. This process is both chosen and
desired by us, and it is also something that we do without being
fully conscious and in control of how it works.
>Why would anyone choose to be the child that is born
>addicted to cocaine or born into a society that does
>not want me like China as a baby girl.
Our spiritual nature is indifferent to personal pleasure or pain.
It has a sense for what is appropriate circumstances for our next
lifetime. There is justice to life that we may not always be aware
of, because it is automatic, built into the fabric of life itself,
and working despite our ability to understand the lesson in things
>I assume you also believe that my spirit is genderless,
>so now DNA determines what type of human I would
Yes, we are genderless as spiritual beings. Sometimes we are
born as men, othertimes as women. And the DNA exists as a "holding
pattern" for the image of the life that we will live. It maintains
the initial image we gave to that life. The particular pattern that
arose is not random, due to luck, but is appropriate to the life
that we are about to live. The physical process of conception does
not cause a life; rather, it is made possible by the life seeking
>It is evident in all societies that boys are more
>rough and girls more observant. So does DNA, my parents,
>society etc...form who I really am?
No. Although we are influenced as we grow up by our parents, the
type of parenting they give us, and by our education and environment,
these influences do not make us. We are each uniquely ourselves, the
way that we have made ourselves through countless lifetimes. Coming
into birth, we are either stifled or encouraged to be ourselves again
by the circumstances of that new life.
In a sense, we made the DNA, we picked the parents, we brought ourselves
into a particular environment to live our new life. We did so because
of who and what we are.
>What happens if the likes of Einstein's spirit gets placed in
>a deaf mute in a third world country? We and Einstein
>have to wait for round two, or three...?
The placement is not random, there is a purpose to it, and that
placement is not due to the "plan" of some outside deity. It is due
to our own "plan", one which we have engineered for ourselves through
countless lifetimes. We have made ourselves what we are today, and because
of who and what we are, and because of our existing ties to others, we
are naturally drawn into birth with certain parents, in particular
situations that are appropriate to us.
>As to Chistian teachings...
>It is clear that God knew us before we were born. It is also
>clear in biblical teachings that we were not formed until
>we were in the womb.
Our human personality of a particular lifetime starts to form in the
womb. But it is not our first such personality, nor will it be the last.
We are eternal, though, in our essential natures, and the experience of
being John or Mary in a particular lifetime is but a passing moment in
> Jeremiah 1:
>is a good example.
Since we don't consider the Bible as the final word in religous or
philosophical authority, a biblical quote is not a useful approach in
a discussion. If you make a point in your own words, words that are
clear and show that you have a good grasp of your idea, we could
discuss the pros and cons of particular points.
>Paul taught "It is given unto man Once to die and then judgement".
>There is no room here for second chances. No reincarnation.
Reincarnation is not a "second chance," but is merely the natural
continuation of our lives on earth, the most appropriate place for
us to learn and grow, until we have spiritualized ourselves to the
point that some other, higher plane of existence will be appropriate
The idea is something that can be considered on its own merits.
We can talk about what reincarnation is, and why reincarnation,
along with karma, provides us with the most just, sound, and
satisfying explanation of life.
An appeal to biblical authority, though, is not helpful in a
discussion, because there is no authority to the Bible, and
because the basic issues in the discussion, the pros and cons
of the ideas in question, are evaded, rather than explored in
open minded discussion.
>The Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic" tried to arouse reincarnation
>and rightfully was not included in canon.
I'll leave it to someone else to bring up the evidence for
reincarnation in the early Christian tradition. The presence of
it there -- how established it was in the early Christian times --
is not related to the truth of the idea. When we talk about how
much such key ideas as reincarnation and karma appear in various
stages of Christianity, we are talking about how much light and
spiritual truth is present or missing from one particular religion
during its different historic periods.
It will be hard to have a discussion until we leave aside any
attempt to "prove" something by quoting our favorite authorites,
and just discuss the philosophical ideas on their own merits.
That means that we leave aside authoritative quotes like "God said ..."
or "the Bible says ..." and just talk philosophy.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application