Did they explain how they came to the conclusion of reincarnation? I get the concept, I don't understand the jump from observing impermanence to inferring past/present/future lives. Why is this life not all there is, according to this philosophy?
OT: I'm trying to implement this idea, as I am coming to understand Buddhist philosophy. It could be numbing... but it isn't for negative reasons, or negative endings (like using substances to numb emotions could).
(The ultimate egalitarian perspective?): Attachment, up to a point, is a good thing. After that point, it creates an imbalance, some unease. (All emotion has the potential to become negative/destructive, rather than positive/turned constructive) You can have attachment to others, which would serve as a base for compassion (a good thing). And when I use 'others,' I mean everyone. Everyone is deserving of some compassion; no one is inherently good, or inherently evil. People have different characteristics, and they can be put in so many different contexts. (Behavioural traits can be destructive, but then you dislike the action, and not necessarily the actor).
Now, you know your partner has their flaws, but they also have good aspects. So does everyone else, as no one is fundamentally bad/good, especially when you look at their history, and their current context. They do not know another way to be [cue NF-ness wanting to make YOU be a better YOU, and help better the world]. When everyone is seen on a similar level, it is difficult to hold someone on a pedestal, as relationships do (that is, the partner is distinguished from everyone else. Maybe a component of 'us vs. them' thrown with it).
This doesn't mean you will have compatibility, but you will have an appreciation for others, and a level of acceptance.
Another aspect is global awareness, and global compassion (reducing the lines of patriotism, nationalism, etc, in favour of oneness with/for others).
I hope I explained it correctly, or clearly enough. Tis' late.