Rebirth

I just finished reading Life Before Life: Children's Memories of Previous Lives by Jim B. Tucker, M.D. It was mentioned in B. Alan Wallace's Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic, which is what inspired me to read it.

The book, published in 2005, provides a summary of the available research on the memories reported by children who claim to have lived one or more previous human lives. It also provides a wide array of alternative explanations from both normal and paranormal perspectives. The author concludes that in his understanding, the evidence is most convincingly explained by reincarnation, rather than fraud, false memories, coincidence, ESP, or possession.

I'm not posting this with the intention of spurring on some sort of debate. What interests me right now is where our forum members currently stand on the issue of reincarnation/rebirth. Think of it as a survey

So, what do you think? Is rebirth:

- a myth
- hocus pocus
- wishful thinking
- scientific fact
- physically impossible
- something you're undecided on
- a tenable explanation
- something you couldn't care less about
- etc.

I'll go first... I think the explanation is tenable. Although I don't how it works, I don't find the alternative explanations for certain phenomena satisfactory enough to take the rebirth explanation off the table. My own insights into the nature of consciousness - arrived at through meditation, or by spontaneous and seemingly "paranormal" experiences - also provide me with evidence contrary to the idea that consciousness is merely an emergent property of the brain.

In a very real sense, I am agnostic about rebirth, in that I have no direct knowledge of it. But, since there is some good evidence supporting its occurrence with for at least some individuals, I'm OK with allowing the possibility into my worldview, however loosely.

Thoughts?

Although I and others have engaged with specific forms that appear to be the remnants of deceased individuals (ghosts), I am not entirely convinced that the individual as such survives from life to life. Those memories or interactions with ghosts could be some form of projection of the living individual's mind. However, whatever their nature, they can still be engaged with as if real and behave as such, so if a ghost shows up, I chat with it, etc. as if it is a discrete individual.

It's not utterly beyond possibility that it is an independent being of some kind, but I can't know. There's an interesting related discussion on Duncan's blog right now (scroll down to the comments below the story): http://oeith.co.uk/2011/12/19/ghost-hunting/

I don't have any personal experiences on or off the cushion that would lead me to believe in rebirth. I did have a psychic tell me that in a previous life in England I made herbal remedies, poulitices and other concoctions for townfolk. According to the psychic, this involved using a mortar and pestle, which interestingly I have a fascination with in this lifetime. Also, accounts by authors such as Michael Newton, Robert Monroe and Motoyama convince me that it is a probable phenomenon.

I doubt that reincarnation is real only because I believe in death. I think the death of who we are and think we are occurs each instant as all the elements that make us think we are a separate person blink on an off. And, as long as we have a living, functioning brain, our memories will provide continuity of separate selfness. Then, once the body/brain dies so does any remnant of a "person." So, in this view, in which there is no "soul," or "spirit," what, exactly, is reincarnated?

Now, to speculate only -- it seems that the brain (along with the rest of the body maybe) is just so vast and filled with so much information and ability to conjure up images and narratives while awake, while dreaming, and, I guess, in the unconscious -- our brain may actually contain memories of other peoples (entities) lives in the past. I don't know, but do you see what I mean? There is just so much stuff inside us that I'm not sure what the real limit actually is.

Also, I have another theory only that is different from what I said in the first paragraph. I'm not sure if I can explain it, but, of course, I'll try.
Okay, all the elements -- senses, memory, brain, desire, instincts, trauma, DNA, etc. etc. that makes us humans go go go -- all those elements are so powerful and do such a good job of constructing a continuous "force" that this force or energy, or movement actually does, upon the death of one physical body, possibly, alight onto another body as it is born (sort of like a soul or spirit). Sounds out there, I know, but it's an idea I often think about. Also, I often wonder if this force/spirit is jumping around between us all the time anyway -- continuously and infinitely.

(the "force/spirit" that I'm speculating about is still not separate but can appear or act separate just like separate humans do all the time and is just too powerful to be restricted to a one living body as I assert at the beginning of this post. IDK)

Thanks for the responses, everyone! I had a feeling we would have some diverse views here. It's part of what I love about this place.

"Wait... that's it? We're done" -Chris

Haha. No, not necessarily. The topic remains open for discussion, for all who are interested.

I just wanted to see what other people were thinking on the topic, but we can certainly keep it going.

I definitely don't know.

(He scratches his head and ponders...)

Well, I just don't find much in me to speculate too much on this, but I can share these two reflections on the topic:

1) ANY belief about what happens (in experience) after the body stops functioning is just that-- a belief. As such, it could be held for many reasons: just a received belief, something arrived at through reflection or dialogue, or a strongly held personal belief.

And the more interesting thing than where the belief comes from, to ME, is: how strongly does one FEEL about a particular belief? I hypothesize the strength of the feeling with which one holds the belief is directly correlated to the degree to which one is uncomfortable with / unresolved relative to the basic, inescapable unknownness of what happens when I die, and the total and complete gone-ness of those who are gone. In the face of this unimaginability of what may happen to me, or of "where" a gone one has gone, it can seem preferable to "believe" something about it. If we haven't resolved this utter goneness of the gone and unknownness of our own eventual end, I think we will try to manage this anxiety with a "belief". On the other hand, when some peace and awareness characterize our relationship to the unknownness and gone-ness, "belief" in general becomes more playful-- "make-believe"-- a way of playing with possibilities. And yet a third possibility: one could adhere to a received or arrived-at-by-reflection-or-dialogue belief out of habit, even once one has come to terms with the fact one doesn't and can't know.

So at one end of the spectrum there is little awareness of and comfort with the mystery of it, correlated to a strongly held belief; and towards the other end there is a looser attitude to various beliefs and a greater awareness of and acceptance of the utter unknownness.

The important point is, any belief can function as a defense against the unknownness-anxiety. The content is irrelevant. Anecdotally, Tomo, I notice that many materialists who believe in oblivion after death seem to assume that all other beliefs, involving some sort of continuation, are a comfortable defense against the "obviousness" of oblivion. However, I think in traditional views of an "afterlife" the function of the view is to set up an extremely significant means of evaluating the current life via an extreme after-life consequence, and I suspect most religious believers of various traditions have felt anything but comforted by the horrifying possibilities pretty much all religions seem to envision. Buddhism is no exception! From a traditionalist's perspective, secular materialism's view of oblivion after death is actually very comforting because with no "you" to experience the consequences of your earthly acts, there is nothing to hope from or fear from death (or life).

2) there is a part of me that views timeless continuity of a knowing/awareness/being dimension of experience as terrifying. That it is never "off", that there is no escape from clarity, is actually scary to parts of me. This is an odd thought, but I'll try to flesh it out. So since, in the moment of appreciating innate clarity, it is clear that clarity and is-ness are literally timeless, it is difficult for the reasoning mind to comprehend how is-ness (and its innate clarity/knowing) could possibly arise (since it is non-arising) or cease (since it is non ceasing). To certain deep aspects of my identity, this is actually scary, and it seems like these deep programs are oriented towards oblivion in the forms of tuning out, ignorant sleep, etc. Does this make sense to anyone?

"there is a part of me that views timeless continuity of a knowing/awareness/being dimension of experience as terrifying"

I think I get this. Awareness is so associated with some level of effort (waking up in the morning and being up all day makes us eventually want to go to sleep) so the idea of timeless awakeness has a little feeling of being exhausting! There is a sense that if the deep programs that need sleep were gone, this wouldn't be a problem, but they're here. So we fear losing our restful sleep.

(Is that about right?)

For what it's worth, I've had experiences that seem to be complete gestault memories of what could be episodes from former lives... but I could also sit down now and write a completely new short story about a fictional character. That character in my mind would be as real as some of those memories.

I have no doubt that others in the buddhist tradition have seen "their past lives" but I the rebirth context means they are interpreted as past lives. If someone was from a "spirit radio" tradition (something I just made up, but it would be people who believe that on enlightenment our mind can recieve mind experiences from other spirits like radio signals) then they would say I have seen "other's past lives" from within their experience of "I". Some fiction writers describe their writing as "channeling" characters.

So I think there are experiences but the context in which it is interpreted is important... and thus I cannot think of a way of testing what is the right context for interpretation --- which is probably why buddha said, don't get into this sh*t, it's a time sink. I think that's a direct quote from the suttas

Jackson, do you really think there is "good" evidence for rebirth... or just "some" evidence? I think the good stories get collected and maintained and the storys that aren't so convincing get forgotton.

That all said, I can't help but believe people who report lots of paranormal experiences. I believe that they had those experiences, but not necessarily that the mechanics of their explanation for their experiences are true. Unfortunately, these two aspects (experience and the context for the experience) seem to arise together, almost like a dependent origination for paranormal experience. So trying to second guess this stuff is indeed a time sink, methinks.

" there is a part of me that views timeless continuity of a
knowing/awareness/being dimension of experience as terrifying. That it
is never "off", that there is no escape from clarity, is actually scary
to parts of me. This is an odd thought, but I'll try to flesh it out. So
since, in the moment of appreciating innate clarity, it is clear that
clarity and is-ness are literally timeless, it is difficult for the
reasoning mind to comprehend how is-ness (and its innate
clarity/knowing) could possibly arise (since it is non-arising) or cease
(since it is non ceasing). To certain deep aspects of my identity, this
is actually scary, and it seems like these deep programs are oriented
towards oblivion in the forms of tuning out, ignorant sleep, etc. Does
this make sense to anyone?" -Jake

yes, I think so. at least in my own experience I went through a fairly long period of utter terror each time I recognized timeless (and infinite/non-located) "is-ness". I described it to myself eventually, when I had reflected on why it so terrified me, as recognizing that there was absolutely nothing to hold on to (oblivion, in a way?). To stop turning away, running away, literally covering my face with my hands would mean accepting what was becoming painfully obvious - that any anchor I held on to was also empty of any intrinsic permanent essence, which seemed perceived as an endless dissolving of anything I tried to cling to. Nothing could not be held, nothing was me or mine, there was no rope. It felt like standing at the brink of a cliff, knowing a fall was inevitable, and not trusting that there was no danger in the falling, but only falling in the falling.

Does that make sense or speak to what you are saying?

I can't say that rebirth is something I think about, beyond its seeming odd that such passionate arguments get started about it. But it does strike me that what we think about 'death' is the shadow side of how we feel about life. As if, the convention is-- life is what we're doing now, and we 'know all about it'; death is what will happen eventually, and is frightening because we don't know anything about it from the subjective side. So we project all the disowned stuff about life onto it; it seems the persistent afterlife story is positive projection of rewards unattained by the good in this life, punishment unmeted to evildoers-- justice denied.

And then we have the times that are completely extraordinary and we realize we don't know jack. About what is happening. let alone what will happen. We can read the surge of adrenaline at such times as ecstatic clarity or abject terror; we can attribute our state to the conceptual 'content' of what's in view. Or we can just register: we just don't know... At all. And that is somehow terribly interesting and worthy of attention.

And then we have the times that are completely extraordinary and we realize we don't know jack. About what is happening. let alone what will happen. We can read the surge of adrenaline at such times as ecstatic clarity or abject terror; we can attribute our state to the conceptual 'content' of what's in view. Or we can just register: we just don't know... At all. And that is somehow terribly interesting and worthy of attention.


-kategowen

Very well said, Kate. That bit (what I bolded) seems very true to me. Depending on where one is in ones practice, accepting not knowing may not yet be accessible.

My one little 'figgered-out-for-myself' idea is that the sequence of 'attainments' has functional value: 'equanimity' allows one to look dispassionately at whatever experience is happening, to be the eye of the storm. So, to function, it has to be not a momentary novelty, but just how it is for the practitioner, integral to being.

@ Tomo: yes, good point.

@Shargrol: Mmm, no, that's not quite what i meant although it's an interesting take on it!

@ Ona: What you describe is maybe similar to what I was trying to express, in some part.

Basically, I emphasize that "there are parts of me" that feel that way (fear in relation to the always-on nature of clarity) because it's simply something interesting to notice about the matrix of assumptions that forms the background for my own particular inauthentic "self"; not that it's a compelling phase I'm going through or something like that (although seeing this thing more and more clearly might led to that i suppose ).

That at the roots of that matrix there seem to be reactions TO the awake state, which is interesting; in other words, I'm discerning a kind of intention/volition in "losing" that timeless view in that there are these identity structures which feel aversion to aspects of that natural state. I just find that fascinating!

Intellectually, I'd be inclined to assume that "ignorance" is a sort of blind stumbling into illusion, so it's interesting to see that there are "sub-personalities" in my mind which ACTIVELY don't want to "relax in the natural state", and one version of that, is a sub-personality for which the timeless clarity offers nowhere to hide.( Even the well adjusted adult psyche, it seems to me, likes to be able to keep secrets from itself). It's as if these identification-movements by which our nameless being tries to bend back on itself and objectify itself, thus enacting a reference point to confirm a stable existence (which is illusory), arise as a sort of intentional movement of mind. As if the activity that ego-ing IS is an activity of trying to be an "ego"-- a solid separate self.

As opposed to merely ignorance regarding the fact that such a mode of being is impossible; ego as an active attempt to become a solid separate self because immature mind finds something threatening in the sheer openness and timeless clarity of authentic is-ness (because, as you point out Ona, there is literally nothing that could even be grasped in reality, so grasping at reality is inherantly frustrating (since futile). So this is why, Shargrol, what I was trying pitiably to articulate is pretty much the opposite of the very interesting thing you were describing; from this point of view that I'm trying to express, "ego" is the perpetually failing, energy-intensive, voluntary and effortful attempt to exist in an impossible way while awareness/is-ness is the timeless patient 'parent' of ego, just seeing "ego"'s amusingly futile attempts to become an (actual, solid, separate) EGO. Hahaha

You know, it occurs to me in this regard that there are two basic situations in which we experience an acute failure of reality to meet our expectations: in suffering, and in the punchline of a joke! And the difference seems to lie in my own attitude. This might explain why I've been laughing so genuinely lately in the face of "stuff" that really used to be very serious and dramatic personal patterns and preferences.

"This might explain why I've been laughing so genuinely lately in the
face of "stuff" that really used to be very serious and dramatic
personal patterns and preferences." - Jake

Yes, it is tremendously hilarious how much effort we put into trying to be this or that kind of person or have this or that preferred experience. One reason perhaps that (in my experience) awakening yields a sort of pliability and give in the face of situations that used to create resistance, pain and opposition. One really overt manifestation of this is the ease with which one can argue with or push the buttons of or criticize an awakened friend and both laugh hysterically at the game, rather than being offended or hurt. Likewise the endless fears we have of how others might perceive us can become quite silly and unimportant. I find, for example, that my main concern if I make a social gaffe (and I make plenty) is that I might have made the other person/people uncomfortable, and I am sorry for that. This instead of the more familiar shame or cringing in myself (Oh, God they must think I'm an utter idiot!). Those are a couple of examples of things I think the word "liberation" very accurately describes.

So, what do you think? Is rebirth:
- a myth
- hocus pocus
- wishful thinking
- scientific fact
- physically impossible
- something you're undecided on
- a tenable explanation
- something you couldn't care less about
- etc.


-awouldbehipster

myth: yes, it's a story we tell each other, about ourselves and our situation.
hocus pocus: don't know.
wishful thinking: Yes!
scientific fact: since it's "I like the idea of rebirth, let's look for proof", it's the reverse of science. Science starts with observations, then proposes a generalization ("theory") and tries to disprove it.
Physically impossible: don't know.
Something I'm undecided on: no, I have strong views about it.
Tenable explanation: I've seen none yet. "He said so" isn't tenable.
Couldn't care less: Here's the thing: depends what somebody does with it. If they use it as a means of death denial, then I care strongly about it. If it fuels their investigation of their situation, I think it's great.

Cheers,
Florian

Point r.e. scientific research, Florian: I'm not sure that: "Science starts with observations, then proposes a generalization ("theory") and tries to disprove it" is really an accurate portrayal so much as science's self-image, or self-idealization; not that it never happens that way, just, that's not necessarily the norm. For instance, observations of what? Obviously there is some sort of targeted looking-for prior to the "objective" looking-at, right? Kuhn shows lots of examples in which the looking-for just keeps looking until it finds what it's looking for, because the scientist in question is convinced that "it" (whatever s/he is looking for) MUST be there.

Heidegger too. (Although he became a 'philosopher', he started out studying science and math, and was even a back-up reader on the mathematics doctoral committee). He has some great scholarship on the actual historical emergence of science as a way of approaching reality which contrasts with science's self-idealization. For instance, the transition to a heliocentric model of our solar system is often portrayed as a situation where the earth-centric astronomers had to keep coming up with more and more complex equations in order to explain away discrepencies, whereas the proponents of heliocentrism just burst on the scene with better math models and better explanations (better = simpler). Not true; apparently at first it was the reverse. Galilleo or whomever was just CONVINCED heliocentrism had to be true (for whatever reasons). HIs contemporaries didn't know what to make of him, because he was insisting that his version was true while his models were more mathematically tortured and were less accurate in terms of making predictions.

Seriously, what's wrong with that?

"I like the idea of the Higgs boson. Let's look for proof."

How is there anything wrong with that?

Isn't the issue whether people are honest about what they then find?

There are psychological components to the issue, for sure, in that there are inner processes which can add up to a sort of self-deception in terms of preferencing certain data based on preconceptions. But I think the idea that science must be conducted without any biases or agendas seems naive to me. Isn't the issue, to be aware of our biases and open to counter-evidence? With the ideal of completely bias-free subjects who can be objective, are we dealing with actual humans and actual science or are we dealing with an ideology of knowing, and of human being, that has itself been proven untrue by science?

I'll say it again to be clear: the ideal of bias-free, open minded subjects who are capable of objectivity is a metaphysical concept involving many counter-factual assumptions. Isn't it an outdated view of human nature? Sociology, psychology and cultural anthropology have de-bunked this view, don't you think? (Not to mention existential-phenomenological thinking, and american pragmatism). Just because the "hard sciences" still see themselves this way doesn't mean it's true... it means that the 20th century's lessons of the human sciences and philosophy haven't penetrated the 19th century opinions about human nature that pervade the culture of physical science.

Note I'm not making a shallow post-modern critique of science. I like science. I just think the ideology of "pure science"-- knowledge for knowledge's sake, the pure subject capable of objectivity, is complete and utter (and dangerous) bunk. Every scientific experiment, hypotheses, etc--- is grounded in an actual situation of motivated human beings with preferences and preconceptions. What separates real scientists from pseudoscientists in my book is the degree of self-clarity about biases, and a commitment to honesty with themselves and their peers. In other words, I think science is a methodology of practical engagement, a way of finding out "what works", not "what's true".

Thoughts?

Ah, OK, I see what you are saying. So the issue is "let's look for evidence FOR ...". I was reading that as "let's look for evidence regarding..." And I thought you meant that scientists who choose a topic are somehow biased and wondered how you thought that worked, how any research would be done at all without the choosing of topics. I still think on many issues scientists who are looking for evidence regarding a phenomenon (whether confirming or disconfirming it) are on some level looking for evidence for OR against it as well. Which is why I think changes in the cultural assumptions of scientists about human nature and knowing are important, along with self-honesty and peer review.

Anyhow, I vaguely recall reading a book about some French psychotherapists who were trying to illustrate the absurdity of past-life-regression hypnosis data as evidence in favor of rebirth. They were going to do hypnosis on a bunch of subjects and induce past-life regression memories with the techniques of past life regression therapists and then tally the data. Their hypotheses was that once tallied, the data would show very unrealistic numbers vis-a-vis the actual demographics of earlier generations. In other words, they hypothesized that many people would remember being "someone special", not just Cleopatras and etc but just, someone with an interesting life.

As it turned out the memories generated in this study apparently lined up very well with demographics: a lot of the "memories" were of being sick infants; those pertaining to adulthood were almost universally mundane (rather than the historical fiction/romance identities the researchers hypothesised would characterize the "memories"). Another interesting piece of data involved past lives as animals: out of the several hundred subjects only one or two had "memories" indicative of animal existence.

The researchers concluded that it was odd that there was such demographic realism. They also, not believing in rebirth, put forth other possibilities to explain the 'memories', some of which were equally esoteric/out there (the "memories" are just astral noise left behind by past experiencers, say).

Kind of interesting. Can't remember the title of the book though!