/lit/ - Literature

I am faced with a difficult problem here, /lit/.

Basically, I am a "reincarnated" (a profane term that doesn't capture the complex nature of the continuation of the consciousness kharma from life to life - there is no simple soul or spirit re-incarnating) author who, a few lives ago, wrote a certain piece on Buddhism that had strong influence among other scholars. The effects of this kharma have continued to this day in influencing certain biases against Buddhism and misunderstandings prevalent in the world. Although 'my' writing is unknown today except its place in two books*, the ideas neverthless remain quite pervasive and, it must be said, - incorrect.

The problem is that 'my' ideas have since changed over the lifetimes and must be understood in connection with those of the past life, otherwise it will be received as just another man's opinion in relation to another. This case is different - I am not the same as that author, yet not totally different. It is not "me" in the sense of an ego or a soul, yet it is not not-"me" in the sense of being a totally different life-continuum of consciousness-kharma. Thus, the change in my ideas are significant.

How can I go about this process as seriously as possible - avoiding novelty aspects of it all due to unfamiliarity with "reincarnation"? As a scholar in those days, I was a very dry, heady, intellectual. I would not have believed it myself, in that life (I did not at all believe Buddhist ideas on rebirth had any reality to them) and would have condemned it in print.

*it would only give these incorrect ideas further longevity if you were to now see the source of prevalent biases in Buddhist studies and attach them to my former name - see the "Stirnerism" of /lit/ and its personality cult tendencies.