Rebirth

I must say, my views on science are very much like those shared by Jake in this thread.

One thIng I like about Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation is that he reportedly heard of the phenomenon (i.e. children reporting past lives, which some believe were "solved"), and then he went to observe it. I don't think he had some belief he was trying to prove. He and the other researchers in his field recognize the flaws I their research, and they hold the opinion that the reincarnation hypothesis makes the most sense. Their data may not be air tight, but their reasoning seems up to par, in my opinion.

Right. As I see it, the core of modern epistemology which should be retained is simple: logic and evidence. That says nothing about worldviews, and depending on the relationship between different kinds of evidence-- say, empirical evidence (gathered via the senses) and phenomenological evidence (pertaining to experiencing-as-such), that basic paradigm of logic-and-evidence for advancing and evaluating scientific claims could allow a lot of diversity on topics like this. I'm thinking, for instance, of phenomenological evidence for the "timelessness" of unconditioned awareness, and the nonduality of unconditioned awareness and conditioned phenomena. What might such evidence have to say about the issue of rebirth?

The worldview within which science tends to operate, due solely to historical conditions, is one in which rebirth is a patent absurdity. Thus, the case of "rebirth" as a topic of scientific inquiry is different from the higgs boson in another important respect, which actually ties in with what you were saying Chris. To borrow from Thomas Kuhn's terminology, the search for the Higgs Boson is "normal science", which means, a specific targeted topic being explored against a background of established findings.

Re-birth is a topic that can't be easily approached within any established scientific background; it's an example of paradigmatic research, in which the very topic challenges scientists' basic assumptions, and represents an opportunity to re-formulate basic background assumptions about the nature of reality and human being before science can even approach the issue. A prior example of this was the anomalous data which led to relativistic and quantum mechanical paradigm shifts in physics around the turn of the last century.

In this case for example, to really orient ourselves to properly researching the topic, we would have to suspend commitment to preconceptions about the relationship between consciousness and matter. Currently it is assumed that, to the extent there is a relastionship, consciousness is an emergent property of material processes at the most. Other popular assumptions in scientific culture are that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon, not even an emergent property with it's own characteristics. Within both of these assumptions rebirth is simply a patent impossibility-- period! I think these kinds of assumptions would have to be suspended, though not necessarily replaced with alternatives, in order to really begin to conceive how we might research the topic of rebirth.

But one cool alternative, which I think meets the Occam's Razor test, is that conscious-matter is the basic "stuff" of universe, period, and when specific systematic levels of self-organizing complexity are reached in local Universe (i.e., in an organism), systems (sentient beings) become reflexive-- i.e., memory and other self-referencing mechanisms emerge which allow conscious matter to represent itself (1). This hypothesis avoids the problems of both the "matter arises from consciousness" metaphysics of a lot of spirituality AND of the "consciousness arises from matter" metaphysics of modernity.

Note that all three of these models-- conscious-matter, consciousness-from matter (whether emergent or epiphenomenal), matter-from-consciousness-- all three are models that precede concrete investigations. They can't be proved or disproved, because they precede concrete research. They orient research. Science (emperical five senses evidence + logic) has nothing to say about them. They can however be evaluated through philosophy (defined as phenomenological evidence + logic). I submit that much of scientism and materialist reductionism is the result not of any scientific discoveries but rather of bad philosophy on the part of most scientists, and there are solid historico-cultural reasons why this happened.

1-- also, it provides a nice model within which awakening can be expressed as this basic substance/nature of things "conscious matter, material consciousness, is-ness" becoming self-clear (or learning to appreciate its intrinsic self-clarity) without relying on self-representations to define a solid, separate "self" and stable, substantial "objects". So not only does this model protect against some of the absurdities of materialism and scientistic reductionism, it protects against the "stink of enlightenment", the possibility of awakened people denying ordinary concerns of differentiated beings and just float off into total emptiness, because things like feelings, embodiment, and relationships matter!!!

""I like the idea of rebirth, let's look for proof":

Unfortunately, this is how a lot of science is pursued these days.



-cmarti

That's engineering, actually.

Nothing wrong with engineering. But it's good to understand the difference clearly.

When that difference gets muddled, unsavory things tend to pop up, such as a prominent German politician writing a best-selling (in Germany) book where he gave his prejudices a scientific pretense. (In Germany, this led to a scandal because he claimed that "Jew" was a biological concept, citing a "Jew Gene" in support of his racist world-view). That's an example of proceeding from a dearly-held opinion and looking to science for support. (I also know about Godwin's law, let's not go there, please: that was just an example which came to mind).

WRT Rebirth: like I said, it's just something we like to think about and tell each other. If we use it to escape into some fantasy world where we are in effect immortal, then that's just as bad as us escaping into emptiness. Several large religions are examples of this.

Cheers,
Florian

Yes, the distinction between engineering and science is part of the unspoken background of this conversation till you highlighted it, Florian; thanks for clarifying that.

I think my basic orientation can be summed up by saying that: "pure science" which is oriented to "pure knowledge for knowledge's sake" and which is supposedly engaged in by "pure subjects" who find "actual objects" is an ideological invention of science as a culture with specific, traceable historical roots.

I think it arose innocently enough-- maybe even was necessary while science emancipated itself from religion and philosophy-- but now functions as a smokescreen for entrenched power interests to try to keep a lid on social changes which might otherwise emanate from science, if science were conceived explicitly along pragmatic-existential lines as a formalized version of human inhabitance in Universe and as such, always, always, always being engaged by motivated subjects for specific purposes in order to do or become able to do specific things or kinds of things, all of which boils down to providing food and shelter etc in more and more efficient, clean ways.

In other words, science is an open ended set of methods that facilitate engineering. It is not a pursuit of truths, but of tools and methods. As such, humans who engage in science have a responsibility to be explicit about the kinds of activities their research is meant to facilitate. No more hiding of things like eugenics, economic imperialism (Monsanto selling seeds to third world farmers with patented genocodes), or mass-manipulation (advertising) behind a shrug and a "hey, I'm doing pure science, it's not my fault if someone uses my research to perpetuate injustice".

On another note (that of the emergence of science as a historical movement), it's possible that the oft noted connection/overlap between early scientists and esotericists is no coincidence but may have been essential to science as we now know it emerging. The idea is that during the renaisance there was a resurgence of what we'd call Magick nowadays (Hermeticism, basically) which was blended with Greek Philosophy. Magick at that time had two components: one, the inner psychological-phenomenological work of awakening, two, what was called 'mechania' (have to look this up, not sure) which involved what we would call engineering. This was used by Magickal people to make little robotic birds and such, and other contraptions, which apparently they were wicked into (think da Vinci). There is a direct parallel in Alchemy: one side was an inner work much like a Christian Tantrism, the other side was a bunch of chemical experiments. So the building of machines,and mathematics and geometry as applied to the same, were important elements of renaissance magic and there are historical connections between practitioners of the same and early figures in the birth of science.

My overiding sense about reincarnation for most of my life is that as long as "I" was born again but didn't remember being me then what good was it?

Is the benefit some people see in it the idea that maybe they will, somehow, through super-spiritual powers and experiences get to remember all their lives and reconnect and integrate it all somehow and that way gain something cool?

Or, is it just the idea that we have this separate soul/self thing that progresses somehow from life to life and shape to shape and it makes one feel like they are on this huge journey thus putting this moment of this life into perspective?

In my clumsly way, I really am trying to find out why it really matters to anyone, ever, especially something so seemingly hard to prove or pin down or see for real?

(could people think that knowing about their past lives help them with their personal psychology issues in this one?)

@mike. perhaps idea of rebirth appealing because most people are afraid to die?
seeking immortality in one way or another seems a common human trait. -excuse typing, sent from my phone.

@mike. perhaps idea of rebirth appealing because most people are afraid to die? seeking immortality in one way or another seems a common human trait. -excuse typing, sent from my phone.

-ona

That's what I never got. If you were reborn but didn't know it, how is that different from dying?
Speaking of this -- do you believe there are people NOT afraid to die? I hear people say they are not afraid of death but I just can't believe them. It just seems like such an essential instinct -- like the need to breathe, eat, hydrate -- powerful and not possible to escape. (unless maybe someone had some mental health issues?)

I have the idea that I must've gotten from someone else because it makes so much sense -- that somehow, at death, the brain/body secretes certain neurotransmitters or something that soothe and calm us and create the capacity to see the "light" and illusions and all that stuff people talk about when they return from near-death experiences. It seems so reasonable and so like the human body to me.

The problem I see with that theory about neurotransmitters and near death experiences Mike is that it's difficult to see how such a thing would be able to evolve and perpetuate itself through natural selection, for obvious logical reasons. So the idea that our brains could have evolved to do that for some good reason seems tenuous at best. Also, why would the brain having something to do with such experiences have anything to do with their veracity? Know what I mean? Presumably the brain has something to do with all of our experiences.

Of course it's possible that those experiences arise due to brain changes at time of death/near death as pure side effects, without any evolutionary purpose. There must be different versions of it (the brain changes) too since some people come back from near death and report more hellish experiences rather than tunnels, light, etc.

@Ona: if it were the case that belief in rebirth were especially an expression of fear of death, than why do you think that the very worldviews historically associated with rebirth-- that of the historical Buddha and some of his contemporaries, Jains, Samkya-Yoga, and the other wandering contemplative ascetics of that time and place amongst whom belief in rebirth was the norm-- why amongst those contemplatives was it generally agreed that rebirth was a horrific thing, and why was the goal of their contemplative practice generally the complete dissociation of unconditioned consciousness from all phenomena whatsoever?

I think it's too easy to transfer our own cultural assumptions onto these kinds of issues, perhaps because to really reconcile with another culture means seeing just how attached we are to our own received views, yet how groundless they are. Again, I say, whatever your "belief" about afterdeath, the more important thing than its content is the strength of feeling with which you hold to it. I harp on that because it seems to me that there is absolutely no way to know for sure or even confidently what will happen n the next moment, particularly if in the next moment we die, and I see much of practice as learning to reconcile this utter ignorance (and the primordial clarity that lives in it) with the fact that we have all kinds of pragmatic and affectionate connections with our situation, contingent though it is.

Jake - im not invested in a neurotransmitter/evolutionary explanatiom. Thats really me just showing my ignorance.

So, your second paragraph sounds reasonable to me as well.

I've been reading Brian Weiss's Many Lives, Many Masters. The book recounts how Weiss stumbled upon past-life hypnotherapy while doing this-life hypnotherapy with a client named Catherine. I wanted to share a passage with everyone because I find it has striking similarities with the worldview of the I-Ching as well as parallels to experiences of non-duality, timelessness, and spacelessness that may occur during practice. Catherine is speaking through a Master Spirit in this passage who she sometimes encounters after a death in a lifetime:

"Patience and timing...everything comes when it
must come. A life cannot be rushed, cannot be worked on a schedule as so many
people want it to be. We must accept what comes to us at any given time, and
not ask for more. But life is endless, so we never die; we were never really
born. We just pass through different phases. There is no end. Humans have many
dimensions. But time is not as we see time, but rather in lessons that are
learned."

The idea of "timing" which Catherine relays is the I-Ching's concept of time. For it, time is not a quantitative time empty of experience, such as in Newton's absolute time, but is a lived time that is connected to the experience of the mind-body. The I-Ching advocates getting in tune with the flow of the universe so that one can act in the right way at the right time. Any attempt to rush this process throws one out of tune.

Her statement of "life is endless, so we never die; we were never really born" reminds me of the characterization of the Dao as "unborn". I think this is closely related to non-dual experience. The idea of "going through different phases" seems to hint at impermanence and change.

Wanted to share because I found the passage particularly moving and saw some major parallels to other things I've read.

Weiss's work definitely provides food for thought around the subject of rebirth. Jim Tucker, who Jackson mentioned at the beginning of this post, does not put any credence into assertions that past-life hypnotherapy is actually regressing people into previous lives. He simply believes the unconscious mind is "filling in the blanks" a la a dream. This could be the case. However, there are definitely some experiences Weiss and Catherine have that test the limit of this explanation. For example, Catherine relays very personal things about Weiss's family in one of her in-between-lives states. According to Weiss, there is no way she gathered this information through sensory perception: the information was just too personal. Catherine also relayed something about her parents that they had kept from her and the rest of the family. She verified this with her mother. So it seems as though these experiences aren't simply a result of the unconscious mind randomly filling Catherine's awareness with content. So, although I am skeptical of Weiss's claim that Catherine is experiencing previous lives, I am definitely open to the possibility.

Of course, if 'lived time' is the quantum-mysteriousness suggested above-- it's not really possible to waste it, exploring anything of interest. Nor is waking up exclusive of anything, or an opposed choice.

Here's something that might be relevant:

I don't believe in magic or the supernatural. I'm as skeptical and atheist as it gets.

And yet, a year ago, I performed a whacky magickal ceremony many times over the course of about six months, met angels and other beings and generally had a lot of fun and a skillful passage through difficult spiritual territory as a result. It turns out you don't have to believe in magick for it to work, as I half-joked to someone recently.

Same with rebirth, I think. You don't have to believe in it - rebirth can be a powerful incentive to practice: maybe the thought of having to learn to walk and talk innumerable times in future lives, all the pain from bruised knees and not being understood by the big ones... or maybe fear of the hells or loss of status in higher realms... whatever. If the myth of escaping the cycle of rebirth works for you and your practice, hey, more power to you.

What worked for me, however, was facing and understanding death in its finality. I grew up with the myth of heaven (and hell, but not emphasized), with personal existence somehow extending beyond the body's lifetime, and discarding that childhood stuff was in-line with my development, whereas propping up belief in an after-life would have been heavy baggage.

The point being that practice has to take place now, and if the prospect of an eternity of doing things over and over makes you want to practice hard here and now, that's great, and if death gives you a sense of urgency to practice before your life slams shut, that's great as well.

And the rebirth myth has my above point built into it, actually: it's called "the precious human birth".

Cheers,
Florian

@jake. i never met anyone who had the rebirth is awful belief. when i've heard reincarnation mentioned among college friends etc it was much more new agey, like a hope in the continuity of personal existence. so can't comment on eastern perspective. personal perspective is i have no idea and don't really care. i'll cross that bridge when it comes.

@florian always meant to ask how you managed to fit those magickal practices into your view. . you know it's funny, i have a fondness for the diversity of human religious experience and its expressions in art, ritual, music, costume, belief, etc. i quite like the stuff, even the werid stuff and silly stuff. i chat with spirits, i enjoy christian prayer as a practice. but i have no idea nor do I think it particularly important whether spirits and such are really real by some other measure. the stuff works - do this ritual, such and such results are quite likely. i don't think there' s any need to believe in it and i really think there' s zero productive use in getting dogmatic about how, why or wherefore. it' s a lovely kind of play for me, tending to be spoiled if one gets hung up on the dogmatic or institutionalized aspects.

excuse typing, on a mobile while traveling

@Ona: Yeah, I think a common theme in 'New Age' thinking is to give a curiously positive twist to everything spiritual, a telling resistance to the possibility of any dark side of spirituality or contemplative and transformative practice. This strikes me as an incredibly narrow view of life that seems to be held by a pretty small segment of the population of Earth: a slice of baby boom ---> to gen X Westerners (or westernized non-westerners). I've never encountered such a view in people deeply rooted in traditional cultures, whether or not they were contemplative yogis per se. Most people don't have the socio-economic buffer that would allow such a one-sided view of life; most people have to deal with a lot suffering as a matter of course; most people have to learn how to suffer well, or go nuts. But yeah, for a small set of lucky privileged people, it's possible to ignore the dark side at least until friends and family start dying off.

Once at a sweat lodge being led by a native medicine man, all the white men prayed for wisdom and transformation and development. The medicine man laughed incredulously and said: "Ah, hey: you guys realize you're praying for suffering right? Cuz transformation and wisdom don't just come with bright light and good feelings..."

@florian always meant to ask how you managed to fit those magickal practices into your view. . you know it's funny, i have a fondness for the diversity of human religious experience and its expressions in art, ritual, music, costume, belief, etc. i quite like the stuff, even the werid stuff and silly stuff. i chat with spirits, i enjoy christian prayer as a practice. but i have no idea nor do I think it particularly important whether spirits and such are really real by some other measure. the stuff works - do this ritual, such and such results are quite likely. i don't think there' s any need to believe in it and i really think there' s zero productive use in getting dogmatic about how, why or wherefore. it' s a lovely kind of play for me, tending to be spoiled if one gets hung up on the dogmatic or institutionalized aspects.
excuse typing, on a mobile while traveling

-ona

I have an old friend who is now a full-time full-on "tarot master." Reallly into it. All the trappings. Anyway, he was at our house last summer and gave Bec and I some readings. I asked a lot of questions, and, when slightly pressed, he admited that the cards were just random, that in a lot of ways it was all kind of a big show, and, still, that it was also all true and the readings always meant a lot to the people he worked with.

I still don't get it.

@jake. i never met anyone who had the rebirth is awful belief. when
i've heard reincarnation mentioned among college friends etc it was much
more new agey, like a hope in the continuity of personal existence. so
can't comment on eastern perspective. personal perspective is i have no
idea and don't really care. i'll cross that bridge when it comes.-- ona

Ah, Ona, but you have: I was talking to our mutual friend Karen awhile back, and she was saying that the thought of reincarnation had always horrified her! We had an interesting time noodling on that one. I no longer recall any of the substance, but maybe she does!

@kate - Well, there you go. I don't think I've ever discussed it with Karen!

@Ona: Yeah, I think a common theme in 'New Age' thinking is to give a curiously positive twist to everything spiritual, a telling resistance to the possibility of any dark side of spirituality or contemplative and transformative practice. This strikes me as an incredibly narrow view of life that seems to be held by a pretty small segment of the population of Earth: a slice of baby boom ---> to gen X Westerners (or westernized non-westerners). I've never encountered such a view in people deeply rooted in traditional cultures, whether or not they were contemplative yogis per se. Most people don't have the socio-economic buffer that would allow such a one-sided view of life; most people have to deal with a lot suffering as a matter of course; most people have to learn how to suffer well, or go nuts. But yeah, for a small set of lucky privileged people, it's possible to ignore the dark side at least until friends and family start dying off.
Once at a sweat lodge being led by a native medicine man, all the white men prayed for wisdom and transformation and development. The medicine man laughed incredulously and said: "Ah, hey: you guys realize you're praying for suffering right? Cuz transformation and wisdom don't just come with bright light and good feelings..."
[image]


-jake

It's interesting though, because I've met (in the course of several past jobs) quite a few people who are right smack in that "lucky priveleged" population, and there is just as much misery there as anywhere. What's different is it is not so focused on food and shelter. But the other human needs: a sense of safety (both physical and psychological), a supportive social network/family relations, and health - no one escapes those stresses. Accidents, ill-health, alcoholic spouses, family and social problems, mental health problems, fear of death, and so on are not doled out only to people of certain economic classes. It is generally easier, perhaps, if ones basic needs are met and one has enough money to have a little leisure time, to spend more time on concerns like inner transformation, wisdom, philosophy and so forth, of course.

Go to any dreadful "magick" forum and the majority of newbie requests are for help finding rituals to get a sexual partner or get revenge on someone who insulted them. Those doing the requesting have enough basic needs met to have a computer and internet connection, at least.

I think the New Age stuff fills a need - not my need, but that of some. The need for comfort, safety and a feeling that somehow all will be well. Whether those beliefs hold up when real dread hits (such as death), I don't know.

Yeah, I agree; that's why I said privilege AND luck can provide a buffer to coarse, obvious suffering. In other words, it can make a bright-and-shiny it's all good one sided psychological outlook tenable, possibly, for a time. Most people I know who are privileged, in this sense (socio-economic, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation etc "privilege") are somewhere on a spectrum from indifferent/mildly miserable to outright miserable. All the research I've seen reveals that, generally speaking, people in developing countries (where there are no major instabilities) are quite a bit happier than most folks in developed nations.

Although I would tentatively attribute that to cultural values, rather than differences in material wealth. For example, in many developed nations, the chief values are to be successful or even very successful in a given field. This is self defeating since success is relative to failure; for there to be a few "winners" who are at the "top of the game", there have to be a lot of "losers". So if you're raised with such a double bind, you're likely to be miserable. And even to succeed in such a situation won't guarantee mundane happiness, of course, which if achieved will be contingent and transient (think mid-life crisis).

In contrast, in many developing nations, the highest values pertain to family life in relatively large extended families. Pretty much everyone can be a decent parent, helpful child and grandchild, and have some wisdom to pass on as an elder; particularly if extended family networks are intact with all the support that provides. So if that's the value your culture imparts, material and professional success will be easier to put in perspective.

Shinzen Young has some interesting things to say about this, related to his formula pain/discomfort + equanimity and mindfulness = purification, and pleasure + mindfulness and equanimity = bliss/joy. He points out that in a culture where you are really engaged, physically, sensuously, in daily tasks-- where gathering water takes an hour, and intense physical effort; where there are animals and crops to be tended; where you make and fix the tools you use in daily tasks-- in such situations, people naturally get more bumps and scrapes, work harder for basic needs, etc and have higher levels of baseline equanimity and mindfulness than the average pampered westerner. Also, regular physical exercise and not over-eating contribute to mental and emotional stability. It seems to tally with what I've seen of third world people. Perhaps daily, physical tasks oriented towards meeting basic needs DOES increase baseline equanimity and mindfulness. Certainly characterizes a lot of monastic living, right?

I have an old friend who is now a full-time full-on "tarot master." Reallly into it. All the trappings. Anyway, he was at our house last summer and gave Bec and I some readings. I asked a lot of questions, and, when slightly pressed, he admited that the cards were just random, that in a lot of ways it was all kind of a big show, and, still, that it was also all true and the readings always meant a lot to the people he worked with.
I still don't get it.


-michaelmonson

It's like in a dream, when you read a page from a book, and then read it again, and it says something different, right? And it all makes sense in the dream...

Cheers,
Florian

It's like in a dream, when you read a page from a book, and then read it again, and it says something different, right? And it all makes sense in the dream...
Cheers,
Florian


-florian

That happens in waking life, too, sometimes (not that the words change into some other words, but one can get a different understanding from it when one re-reads it another time).

@ona waking life has lots of dreamlike qualities.