The Johrei View of Life/Reincarnation

[vic smyth]

I wanted to share this view from the founder of Johrei which is a spiritual movement founded in Japan over 50 years ago. It's from this website (http://www.johreifoundation.org/shownews.asp?newsid=97). It has an interesting view of reincarnation:

Spiritual Cords And Past Lives

Before going into further detail, the principles of reincarnation must be explained. Simply stated, after death every human being enters the spiritual world, that is, he or she is born into the spiritual world. This is how Buddhists refer to death—to be born in the Buddha’s land—which is rightly justified from a viewpoint of the spiritual realm. Here a person’s various transgressions in the physical realm prompt a process of purification. Spirits reincarnate when they have been purified to a certain degree reincarnate. Suppose a man had been wicked in a previous life, and upon death incurred by execution or under other circumstances, he deeply repents. Convinced that one must not commit evil, he resolves to be good in his next life. When he reincarnates, he comes back as a man of virtue.

It is possible that an individual who is virtuous by nature in this lifetime may have been extremely wicked in the previous life. There are many people who do not believe in life after death while living in this realm. After death, these people cannot find peace in the spiritual realm and often reincarnate before being fully purified, due to their attachment to physical life. Because of this, they retain sins and impurities for which they must go through purification in this world. Purification manifests as suffering. This explains why some individuals are born good but lead quite unfortunate lives. Other people are born disabled. Those who are born blind, deaf, or deformed died an unnatural death and reincarnated before the injury was fully purified. Let me write about another situation which is a remarkable illustration of reincarnation. Some new-born babies bear features of elderly people. They are reincarnations of those who died at advanced ages. As some people know, their features change and become baby-like after a few months.

In one family, the dishonest mind of the parents may reflect in one child, making him bad, while their conscience may reflect in the other, making him good. In another instance, where the parents have accumulated much wealth by dishonest means, the spirits of the ancestors make one of the children a prodigal son who squander the money like water until all the fortune is gone. This is because the ancestors know that the prosperity of the family is almost hopeless unless the ill-gotten wealth is dissipated. In this case, therefore, the son chosen to be a prodigal is actually performing a noble role of saving his family. People who are unaware of this may accuse him of destroying the family fortune, but in fact he is the one who deserves our sympathy.

by Mokichi Okada

[Roberta Grimes]

I agree, Vic - quite interesting! I majored in religion in college, and while there I read a lot of Buddhist, Taoist, and Krishna materials - I was fascinated by eastern religions for a time, which may be one reason why I found the afterlife evidence for reincarnation so easy to accept later on even though I come from a Christian background. What I found in these eastern religious materials, looking back, is just what I later found to be true of mainstream Christianity, and what is true of your wonderful post as well: many spiritual leaders have glimpsed the truth, but they soon feel the need to codify it into a philosophy or to dogmatize it into a full-fledged religion, and then their own views seep in and what should be pure truth becomes distorted by their own lack of understanding. Okada clearly has part of the truth here, but because it has been solidified by his own thoughts this way we can see that his philosophy also contains likely misunderstandings. It's as if he had learned part of the truth and then put a ribbon around it for all time!

Actually, this is something that we all must be careful about here, which is one reason why I am so glad that you have brought this up, dear Vic. Many of us here are literally drunk on the truth! Having seen how perfectly such a tremendous body of afterlife evidence from so many sources all fits together so there seems to us now to be nary a chink or a gap anywhere, it is tempting for us to say, "Eureka! We have it now!" when in fact we have only progressed a little farther than the extraordinary researchers who came before us. We stand on the shoulders of giants! But still, I have a hunch that we have barely reached halfway up the first floor of what will be a towering edifice of knowledge. Our search for the truth has only well begun! What I look forward to especially will be the inevitable day when a few mainstream physicists dare to investigate the greater reality and their research is accepted by their colleagues. Then, dear friends, I have a hunch that our understanding will start to skyrocket!

[vic smyth]

Hi Roberta, I certainly agree with you -- I've kept a journal for decades and re-read it from time to time, it's amazing how my spiritual concepts change over the years, sometimes evolving, at times devolving, like taking one step back before taking two steps forward. Certainly the information on this forum is a big aid, especially being able to hear views of skeptics and those with oddball views (like myself :) ) in a civil, open-minded manner.

Thanks,
vic

[Gypsyblue]

I can't believe everything that's in the Bible's New Testament because I believe Jesus/Yeshu's teachings have been altered as they have been handed down over the years.

But there's a reference in the Gospel of John, where Jesus is shown a blind man and the question is put to him: "Who sinned? This man or his parents that he was born blind?"

Surprisingly, Jesus says: "Neither"!

Jesus goes on to say: "This man was born blind so that the works of God could be revealed through him" and Jesus then heals the man.

None of those words in quotes are taken directly from the New Testament - I'm quoting them in my own words. But that's the gist of the exchange.

[Gypsyblue]

I also love this song by Johnny Cash: Farther Along. Farther Along we'll understand why. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gGgtyy2xKw Wish there was a version online without an ad, but you can skip the ad 5 seconds after the video begins.

[Annie]

That's an interesting theory, about having to suffer in this life to purify yourself from the last life. I always kind of thought that the sufferings we take on in life are our own choices though, but maybe people do decide to be born with disabilities because they feel guilty for things they did in different lives and they want to repent, even though no one else is forcing them to, because they want to progress spiritually.

[Roberta Grimes]

I can't believe everything that's in the Bible's New Testament because I believe Jesus/Yeshu's teachings have been altered as they have been handed down over the years.

But there's a reference in the Gospel of John, where Jesus is shown a blind man and the question is put to him: "Who sinned? This man or his parents that he was born blind?"

Surprisingly, Jesus says: "Neither"!

Jesus goes on to say: "This man was born blind so that the works of God could be revealed through him" and Jesus then heals the man.

None of those words in quotes are taken directly from the New Testament - I'm quoting them in my own words. But that's the gist of the exchange.

I agree with you, dear Gypsy. We know that the Gospels were edited during the 2000 years they spent in Church custody, so how can we now possibly know whether Jesus said what he is reported to have said? To my mind, we can reasonably trust what we can independently corroborate. We have nearly 200 years of abundant and consistent afterlife evidence, and it turns out that about 95% of what Jesus is quoted in the Gospels as having said is stunningly consistent with the afterlife evidence, even in tiny odd details. The odds against chance for so many such detailed correspondences are astronomical! So now I see the afterlife evidence as incontrovertibly, objectively real; and I see Jesus as a genuine eternal being who was able to tell us things about God, reality, death, the afterlife, and the meaning and purpose of human life that we could not have confirmed independently for nearly 2000 years. Amazing and beyond-belief wonderful, dear friend!

[vic smyth]

...95% of what Jesus is quoted in the Gospels as having said is stunningly consistent with the afterlife evidence...

Hi Roberta, If you have time, I would be every interested in the 5% of what Jesus quoted that does not agree. You don't have to be specific or provide specific passages, just an overview would be fine.

Thanks,
vic

[Andrew]

Hi Vic! If I may, I know a few things that Yeshua says which are not accurate with afterlife evidence, but that are likely edits of what he really said. These edits were most likely made by early church fathers. Mostly it's the occasional quote about the fires of hell. You can tell, though, that it doesn't fit with the rest of what he is saying. Here's an example:

22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28; KJV)

That's pretty descriptive about hell and it's make hell found like fire and brimstone. But, the evidence is clear that, the only way that such a hell could actually exist, would be if we truly believed that it did and that we ought suffer in it.

[vic smyth]

The story you quoted from Luke is only found in Luke, so it's not well attested and could have been added by the author of that gospel. (Oddly the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son are also only found in Luke.) But something that is well attested in the synoptic gospels is that Jesus quite often mentions "outer darkness" and "wailing and gnashing of teeth". Would this be something that fits or is it part of the 5% that does not?

Thanks,
vic

[Roberta Grimes]

Hi Roberta, If you have time, I would be every interested in the 5% of what Jesus quoted that does not agree. You don't have to be specific or provide specific passages, just an overview would be fine.

Thanks,
vic

Hello dear wonderful Vic! Thank you for this question. Yes, Jesus's mention of people being "thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth" is exactly consistent with the afterlife evidence, to a degree that flat-out cannot be coincidence! Beyond the stories that Andrew tells above, there are a few specific things that Jesus is quoted as saying which are almost certainly later additions. Here is how I believe you can tell the difference. Look for things that Jesus is quoted as saying that:

1) ... don't flow with the rest of the passage where they appear, and

2) ... are insistent with the teachings of Jesus in the rest of the Gospels, and

3) ... are inconsistent with the afterlife evidence, and

4) ... directly support mainstream Christian dogmas.

The teachings of Jesus are amazingly consistent both internally and with the afterlife evidence from one end of the Gospels to the other, so the bits that meet the four criteria above really stick out as obvious bits of coal among Jefferson's description of the words of Jesus in the Bible as "diamonds in a dung hill." I don't have a Bible here with me so I can't cite passages just now, but here are two obvious examples:

1) Jesus is sometimes quoted as talking about "sin" and "hell." These passages generally don't fit in context, and certainly don't fit with the rest of what Jesus said. Nor do they fit with the afterlife evidence at all.

2) Jesus is said to irrelevantly blurt out, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Pure mainstream Catholic dogma, and not remotely consistent with the rest of what Jesus says - not even in the longer passage where it appears. And again, entirely unsupported by nearly 200 years of afterlife evidence!

To me, the wonder is that so little of what Jesus is quoted as saying in the Gospels has to be discarded this way. Remove these bits, and you are reading the eternally living words of a very advanced and infinitely knowledgeable being!

[Andrew]

I agree with Roberta exactly! 99.99% of additions to the Gospels were made by the early Popes and other influential clergy members who wanted the Gospels to appear to support the Catholic faith and their interpretations of it. It is also likely that Jesus talked about reincarnation, but that was removed early on to give the clergy more control.

Thomas Jefferson once said that the words of Jesus stood out in the Bible like diamonds in a dunghill. These edits, in turn, often stand out like dung in diamond mine. :D

[vic smyth]

So I guess my question boils down to this: Is your view of what Jesus said and did infallible? Is Thomas Jefferson's view infallible? Was Jesus infallible? Was the God that Jesus worshiped infallible? Is the afterlife evidence, based on medium's and visionary's accounts and NDEs infallible? Is anything in this illusory world infallible? Are the various afterlife levels part of our illusion, therefore subject to the same question of infallibility? Is Jesus part of that illusion? God (a single supreme spiritual being)?

We're all fumbling in the dark here, all eager to share the shadows that we have glimpsed, all claiming to possess the brightest flashlight...

Godspeed you on your various journeys with the only infallible thing that I claim to have found: Lovingkindness (metta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/buddharakkhita/wheel365.html#intro)), I'll let the rest of you hash out the details on your own,
vic

[Carol and Mikey]

Vic,
Mikey tells me "infallible" is only in the Mind. Love is what is true and real. It is this love that is God.
Carol and Mikey "in Spirit"

[Gypsyblue]

Vic,
Mikey tells me "infallible" is only in the Mind. Love is what is true and real. It is this love that is God.
Carol and Mikey "in Spirit"

Based on my own experiences with the Big Guy, I'd say that if we have to give him a name LOVE would be it. I felt not a single moment of anything but LOVE rolling my way. And that's who/what we are too - the same LOVE. Whether you're more comfortable thinking we were created in God's own image (LOVE) or that God is who we all are (still LOVE) or that we're each a chip off of the old block (BIG LOVE/small LOVE), who we are in our self of selves is LOVE. It might be why our inner judge beats us up so badly sometimes when we behave falsely - ie: in an unloving way. There is a Jefferson Bible, BTW, that Thomas Jefferson made by clipping out all the statements that he regarded as being true in the New Testament and gluing those words to a clean sheet of paper, thus eliminating all that he felt was false, illogical or not able to be proven. You can buy it. It's a fairly short volume, although good reading. He removed the ascension to heaven, BTW.

[Roberta Grimes]

Based on my own experiences with the Big Guy, I'd say that if we have to give him a name LOVE would be it. I felt not a single moment of anything but LOVE rolling my way. And that's who/what we are too - the same LOVE. Whether you're more comfortable thinking we were created in God's own image (LOVE) or that God is who we all are (still LOVE) or that we're each a chip off of the old block (BIG LOVE/small LOVE), who we are in our self of selves is LOVE. It might be why our inner judge beats us up so badly sometimes when we behave falsely - ie: in an unloving way. There is a Jefferson Bible, BTW, that Thomas Jefferson made by clipping out all the statements that he regarded as being true in the New Testament and gluing those words to a clean sheet of paper, thus eliminating all that he felt was false, illogical or not able to be proven. You can buy it. It's a fairly short volume, although good reading. He removed the ascension to heaven, BTW.

Well said, dear wonderful Gypsy! And great to mention the Jefferson Bible, which I came across 20-odd years ago and found to be immensely liberating, even long before I understood how completely the afterlife evidence affirms the teachings of Jesus. Jefferson cut up a number of Bibles, and he pasted the Jesus quotes that he approved side-by-side in four languages: English, French, Greek, and Latin. He wanted to really understand what Jesus actually was saying by studying the subtle differences in meanings in the four translations. Jefferson saw Jesus as the great Teacher, and he considered the miracles - especially - to be nonsense. In yet another way, dear friend, Thomas Jefferson was centuries ahead of his time ;-).

[Andrew]

So I guess my question boils down to this: Is your view of what Jesus said and did infallible? Is Thomas Jefferson's view infallible? Was Jesus infallible? Was the God that Jesus worshiped infallible? Is the afterlife evidence, based on medium's and visionary's accounts and NDEs infallible? Is anything in this illusory world infallible? Are the various afterlife levels part of our illusion, therefore subject to the same question of infallibility? Is Jesus part of that illusion? God (a single supreme spiritual being)?

We're all fumbling in the dark here, all eager to share the shadows that we have glimpsed, all claiming to possess the brightest flashlight...

Godspeed you on your various journeys with the only infallible thing that I claim to have found: Lovingkindness (metta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/buddharakkhita/wheel365.html#intro)), I'll let the rest of you hash out the details on your own,
vic

Vic, I would say that Jesus himself was not infallible, because, as Mikey so wonderfully says, only Mind/God is infallible. However, since we are all truly God, perfection and infallibility are part of our divine nature. But, while seemingly separate from God, it is clear that people can make mistakes and be wrong. Jesus is no exception, although he is about as close as a living person can get.

I like the flashlight analogy! :)

[Roberta Grimes]

So I guess my question boils down to this: Is your view of what Jesus said and did infallible? Is Thomas Jefferson's view infallible? Was Jesus infallible? Was the God that Jesus worshiped infallible? Is the afterlife evidence, based on medium's and visionary's accounts and NDEs infallible? Is anything in this illusory world infallible? Are the various afterlife levels part of our illusion, therefore subject to the same question of infallibility? Is Jesus part of that illusion? God (a single supreme spiritual being)?

We're all fumbling in the dark here, all eager to share the shadows that we have glimpsed, all claiming to possess the brightest flashlight...

Godspeed you on your various journeys with the only infallible thing that I claim to have found: Lovingkindness (metta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/buddharakkhita/wheel365.html#intro)), I'll let the rest of you hash out the details on your own,
vic

Wonderful post, dear Vic - but I think that whether Jesus is "infallible" may be the wrong question. That whole notion comes from religious terminology - mainstream Catholic, to be exact - and it presupposes a triune Catholic God of which Jesus is said to be a part. I would say rather that if we study nearly 200 years of amazingly abundant (but mostly ignored) afterlife evidence, we find that it is all internally consistent and it presents a detailed picture of a very complex greater reality that is not consistent with mainstream Catholic theology. Not at all! It is, however, entirely consistent with about 95% of what Jesus is quoted in the Gospels as having said when He walked the earth, even in tiny details. Since the odds against chance for so much synchronicity across so much afterlife evidence and then between that evidence and the teachings of Jesus are literally impossibly high, all of this cannot be coincidental. So I would say not that Jesus is "infallible," but rather that Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago knowing and saying things about eternal Mind, about all of reality, about what death really is, about what the afterlife is like, and about what human beings actually are that we could not by any means have confirmed until nearly 2000 years after His death.

So Jesus is an eternal aspect of Mind Who came to earth with the deliberate intention of teaching the world's first true monotheists and elevating their understanding. Infallible? Hmmm... maybe so, after all... ;-).