I admit that all in all, my conjecture has received mainly constructive and logical criticism and don't deny that you have a good point. I'd still say that one has sufficient reason to entertain the belief in karma and rebirth, something which I find totally untrue about monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam. I've laid out my arguments as well as I could, so I won't repeat myself.

I'll point out just one thing. Human intuition is right most of the time and (I repeat myself) it is the main way of getting to know anything. I feel that we can use the overall track record of our intuition to justify whether we decide to entertain a certain conjecture or not. In fact, I'm pretty sure we (and you) do this ALL THE TIME.

It is simply my experience that after I decided to entertain the notion of karma and everything that follows from it, it all fits well in my framework and appeals to my intuition. That is not something that happens to any notion that crosses my mind; quite the contrary.

The only thing that fits even better with my intuition and understanding is Darwin's theory of natural selection, which I do hold should be our primary way of explaining things, until something even more convincing (or at least co-existent) is discovered.

I want to repeat that I respect (almost) all of your criticism and find it extremely valuable, even if I believe that there are reasons to supersede it.

And finally, I feel that I could have done a much better job in pointing out all the good reasons for the existence of karma and the harmonious underlying order that exists just outside of our understanding. Perhaps it is that I'm looking at it from a purely intuitive standpoint. I hope to improve my logical framework for this notion in the future.

Interesting. The same thing happened to me when I embraced the understanding of natural chaos.

most of the time, yes, but not all the time. If I want to know if a girl likes me, I use my intuition. But if I want to know that general relativity is true, I use a much much higher standard. Most things in common life are in the former, but to really know something we have to have a higher standard with evidence and reason and the like. And most of the time we don't go to the higher standard just because of time and efficiency and that it doesn't matter much. But for a fantastical claim like "reincarnation is true" we surely think that is important and want the higher standard to which we need evidence and reason. I want to entertain this conjecture, as you say, and really dig in and find out if it is true. But the problem is that when we do that, you cant supply any evidence or reason for it.

Btw, it is worth remember that my intuition (and billions of others) is directly the the opposite of yours that reincarnation is NOT true. So it is a bad example to rest simply on the laurels of intuition.

Sigh, atheists are frustrating aren't they?

General Relativity - who cares?

One thing I think that is interesting about Hinduism is the caste system. What does that system tell us about the "nationality" of the Buddha, and what are its implications on reincarnation?

Additionally the caste system is interesting to me as it seems similar to the planning in the Law of Moses, as regards to property placement.

Blavatsky> Besant > Jiddhu Krishanmurti > Bruce Lee

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...uce+lee+jiddhu

also for anyone interested, and i may have this slighty off but there a big connection here where Blavastky created the theosophical society which funded the socialist party that become the nazi regime, which is the connection to the swastikas and the belief in a superior race and Atlantis.

No this is a misapplication of the understanding because you are mixing it with preconceived notions on things like the soul and time

The issue its its NOT like trying to learn calculus, your past knowledge doesn't help you for this and would be a hindrance. So for the task at hand being free from knowledge is best.

you are suggest dying is a result of bad karma

I don't think you can separate science from philosophy on this one, doing so make it impossible to answer and study properly. I'm also confident the Dhali lama would smile and agree.

He was asking the question under the premise that there is a soul. Exploring the hypothetical.

In response to op, it is my understanding of hinduism that you can revert back to animal stages etc. by existing in an improper way. Its not inevitable you will go beyond human stage but you can only go higher from human stage not animal. I can't remember and will have to really get the gears going for a bit to try and remember, but i think the answer to your question is its a wrong question and a misapplicatiaon of the teachings.

anyways I'm pretty sure animals can't live 'right' lives.

Anybody who uses a GPS?

I got into this a little and remembered something, not sure if I came up with it or found it in texts.

Animals live in their animal form because they don't have the human capacities that allow us the opportunity to transcend to a high non sentient form. This is mainly compassion and empathy-or sharing.

As humans if we treat these animals harshly they become harsher and are robbed of their ability to sympathize etc. But if we treat them and raise them well, make them secure and less afraid it calms there 'soul' and gives them a chance at a better rebirth (human form).

So people who have been raised in violence etc who become mean and violent themselves slip towards the animal realm and can eventually fall back into it.

You have to remember depending on the branch of what religion you are looking people of the same religion will disagree.

It certainly doesn't allow for the thought that we are all one.

I don't know that I believe in this or that its part of the religion you are reading but I put it out there.