The two great religions of the East, Hinduism and Buddhism, accept the concept of reincarnation. The great religions of the West, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, don't, while still accepting life after death in one form or another. [Certain esoteric traditions within or adjacent to the three Abrahamic faiths are more open to reincarnation, but they are far from the doctrinal mainstream.] Secular materialism, or physicalism, likewise rejects reincarnation.
So to the Western mind the concept is entirely alien, on the one hand, it's not passed down in religious education, on the other it's poo-pooed by rigorous rationalism. Awareness of the transmigration of souls in the West only really kicked off with New Age in the 1960s, a movement focused on the unification of body, mind and spirit.
Today, reincarnation is considered increasingly seriously as a hypothesis in the context of life after death. The blending of Eastern traditions of reincarnation with science, and the philosophy of idealism, which posits that consciousness is the fundamental property of the universe, from which space, time, matter and energy are derived (and not the other way around, as science believes).
If any one Western researcher has done more serious work into this subject, it is Ian Stevenson (1918-2007), from the University of Virginia School of Medicine. Over his 40 years of work in this field, he authored 14 books and 300 academic papers, based on over 2,500 cases of children who claimed to remember past lives. What made his work notable was his systematic methodology. His research focused on children (typically aged 2–6) who spontaneously spoke about 'previous lives'.
Prof Stevenson studied cases mainly in countries where reincarnation was a culturally accepted belief; India, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Turkey, Burma and Thailand. He was looking for statements made by the child relating to a deceased individual that could be verified. In particular, he was looking out for behavioural and physical traits that corresponded with those of the deceased. Prof Stevenson's methodology focused heavily on early documentation, interviews with multiple witnesses, and taking care to minimise the possibility of information leakage between families.
I don't intend to highlight any of the cases that he brought to light (if you are interested, ask your favourite AI for a summary of Ian Stevenson's most persuasive cases). What I do want to share with you is what he claimed, and what he didn't claim. He never claimed to have proven reincarnation. His position was more restrained; the cases he published "may point to a currently unknown mechanism of memory transfer." ChatGPT sums up his work as "anomalous but not definitive, sitting at the boundary between psychiatry, anthropology, and parapsychology".
Stevenson emphasised that the information he collected was suggestive of reincarnation but "was not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief." Yet he believed that he had produced a body of evidence for reincarnation that should at least be taken seriously. Reincarnation, he posited, might represent a third factor, along with genetics and the environment ('nature and nurture'), contributing to the development of certain phobias, philias, unusual abilities and illnesses.
Now, while believing in reincarnation on the basis of first-hand experience, I feel that Prof Stevenson's approach is flawed. The problem I have with seeking empirical evidence to prove any metaphysical subject lies in the problem of using the scientific method as a tool to validate it in front of an innately sceptical scientific community. If they don't wish to accept it – fine. I just happen to do so, and if I need to validate my spiritual experiences to anyone, it is primarily to myself.
I don't reject Prof Stevenson's work, but consider it incomplete and pursuing the wrong goal. If he proves some unknown mechanism linking a living person with a dead one through memory, then why does it manifest itself so rarely? Are most people – even in cultures that accept reincarnation as reality – unable to reincarnate? Unworthy of reincarnation? Or do the hallmarks or a reincarnated soul manifest themselves in vaguer, more subtle ways than direct, literal, links to a real predeceased person?
I personally do not believe that the spiritual realm wishes itself to be proven empirically by science, with experiments, in a formula. We are not simply meant to know – yet. We should accept the mystery of these anomalies as part of our reality, but unless a case is too strong to overlook, we should not dig through archives in an attempt to prove its literal reality.
Attempts by scientists (who have to endure taunts of 'pseudoscientist!' from their fellows) to prove the existence of a range of psi phenomena using the scientific method (repeatable experiments, peer-reviewed papers etc) are ultimately doomed to failure, not because the numbers lie, but because no one has the slightest idea of a mechanism, a framework, by which they can happen.
So let's say I find medical records of a 'Mr. Martin' who died in the early hours of the morning in a modern hospital building in America in the mid-late 1950s – then what? Does that prove anything? Does it explain my dream? Validate a lifetime of anomalous qualia memories? Would it silence the sceptics? Of course not. Do I need validation? Personally, no. I know what I experience – however, how it happens is a mystery. And I expect it to remain so. For many lifetimes to come.
More tomorrow.
Lent 2025: day 29
Getting On With It (Pt I)
Lent 2024: day 29
Altruism and consciousness
Lent 2023: day 29
Artificial Intelligence creates a religion
Lent 2022: day 29
Meditations on travel
Lent 2021: day 29
The ups and downs of life
Lent 2020: day 29
Prophetic
No comments:
Post a Comment