Reincarnation Cases

Anyone can post anywhere on this forum, correct? I would love to hear from some of the skeptics about their opinions on this stuff, if they're around.

Are we to assume that all people have past lives, and that people can usually remember their past lives? How many of them? How much information? If people are reincarnated numerous times, how would they maintain an ego in the present tense, if they are also all of these other people, as well? Or is the belief that only slivers of memories from past lives somehow slip through, and only occasionally? I ask these questions in earnest, as I really don't know much about it, but I'm curious and more than a bit skeptical. 

Thanks!

Are we to assume that all people have past lives, and that people can usually remember their past lives? How many of them? How much information? If people are reincarnated numerous times, how would they maintain an ego in the present tense, if they are also all of these other people, as well? Or is the belief that only slivers of memories from past lives somehow slip through, and only occasionally? I ask these questions in earnest, as I really don't know much about it, but I'm curious and more than a bit skeptical. 

Thanks!

All good questions and I've asked all of them. 

Here's what I've come to understand.

No,, people cannot usually remember past lives. Some do, usually only between the ages of 2-8 and then the memory fades. Most times parents dismiss the stories the child tells as just fantasy. In some cultures these stories are taken seriously, such as India. No surprise that most reincarnation stories come from there. It's not because that only where they happen. It's because people are inclined to pay attention due to cultural acceptability.

You may have lived countless lives. Maybe thousands. And you've lived them with mostly the same cast of entities. You been man and woman, black and white, rich and poor. Those people who youve shared lives with for hundred or thousand of time are in your soul group. (see life between lives, below)

You can learn about prvious lives via hypnotic regression. I have had one. It was pretty wild. Must admit though it felt like I was making the story up. Still not convinced my story was true. But I'm left brained. Many people are wired to be more receptive to it.

Since people don't remember their past lives, they can live this one "fresh" so to speak. So you might ask: what is the point? If I loose the memory of the past lives then how would I ever "progress"? Ever "evolve"?

The answer is: when you leave this life and return to your natural state, to your "life between lives" you are the sum of ALL your past experiences.  You have the wisdom of the totality of yourself. (see book suggestion below) This life Between Lives is your real home. This life you are living now is but a carnival ride, a vacation to a new land, that you are using to have experiences.

But, you might ask, what about when I come back for my next life and forget again? How to I access that wisdom?
Ah here's the cool part. Your instinct, your intuition, your gut feel, your proclivities, your basic nature,,,, these are all based on your complete self. Your total accumulated wisdom. That complete you is speaking quietly to you every day. You can learn to listen better, but even if you don't, you will still have those intuitions.

To learn about life between lives:
You need to read the book "Life Between Lives" by Michael Newton. It is the best intro to the concept. 

Also read "Nosso Lar" by Chico Xavier for a good insight. It is also now a movie worth watching (but not as good as the book) called "Astral City". I have personal experience to the accuracy of this book and movie.  It's a bit of a story but I can point you to a video clip I made about it if you are interested.

To learn about a modern reincarnation, read:
The Boy Who Knew To Much.

Here's a video that goes into reincarnation and other stuff. It' might be useful.




That's enough for now I think.

Or download Nosso Lar here.

Are we to assume that all people have past lives, and that people can usually remember their past lives? How many of them? How much information? If people are reincarnated numerous times, how would they maintain an ego in the present tense, if they are also all of these other people, as well? Or is the belief that only slivers of memories from past lives somehow slip through, and only occasionally? 

Ok, let's stay within the idea that time as real. Yes to the first, depends to the 2nd question. Only if it is relevant for you to learn from. The information varies from images to fully detailed info, again, whatever is relevant.

Switch to the concept that physical reality is NOT real as is time. They are constructs of your consciousness so To the bold: There is only one YOU. YOU cross connect to parallel realities which there are varying versions of you but NOT YOU. This is what ppl misnomer as "past lives" and "future lives". YOU never, ever loses your personality. EVER.

To the italics - YOU get the information that is relevant to your life experience, not a bit more or one byte less.

Nothing to forgive.

Time is an illusion we create so to experience the /process/ of that experience. As infinite beings, we originate and co-habit 'places' that are timeless i.e. there is NO process. All thoughts, expressions, etc. happen instantaneously.

We incarnate here because of the /process/. So unique that it is.

The implications are that once you come to the POV that time is illusionary, then you have to very strictly examine the high probability that you create that illusion.

Do you have any scientific evidence for these wild claims? How do you know time is an illusion? How do you know we are 'infinite' beings?

Anyone can post anywhere on this forum, correct? I would love to hear from some of the skeptics about their opinions on this stuff, if they're around.

The scientific skeptic view is that reincarnation does not exist. All alleged cases can be explained by cryptomnesia, fraud, coincidence or false memories. You can check out Paul Edwards book for a good example of this position.

[Ninshub]

The scientific skeptic view is that reincarnation does not exist. All alleged cases can be explained by cryptomnesia, fraud, coincidence or false memories. You can check out Paul Edwards book for a good example of this position.

Leuders, this is another reminder about the forum rules. Please read again the Skeptic vs. Proponent section. "Skeptics" can discuss the merits of a specific case in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena forum, but not argue for the non-anomalous nature of the phenomena in general. This post you've made goes against those rules.

---


And, as a non-moderator I would add, I would correct your post to say "The scientific "Skeptic" view is that reincarnation does not exist.." But that's for another thread and sub-forum.

Or download Nosso Lar here.

Hey thanks Pssst. 

I looked for this sucker on line for hours a few years back and couldn't find it. I finally gave up and bought the darn thing for $20. It's a little cheesy, but the story is good (I think). And for me personally it hit home because...

 -this is the reader's digest version of the story- 
I had a couple lucid dreams 1-2 years before I read the book or saw the movie and I was shocked when I watch the film... That's because I saw a scene that I had in my lucid dream almost identically. Luckily I journal all my important dreams, and I went back and looked and found the entry, complete with a sketch of what I saw in my dream,, and it was spot on, with the movie. So I know this dream is based on something real, because I experienced it first hand, exactly as it happened in the film...

For those interested in the "Life Between Lives" (LBL) aspect of our existence, this is a great place to get a taste of it. 

Why should anyone be interested in LBL? Because it is your real home or at least more real than this life you are living. If true, this is the place where you were before you came here, and the place to which you will return. It is the place where a more complete you exists. According to most: you exist there at this very moment. The you here in this life is but a fraction, a percentage, of the full you. The rest of you awaits your return. Weird stuff I know but pretty sure that's how reality works folks. And even if not completely true, it is more true than: we are born from nothing, we live for a few decades, and then we die and everything goes black. That is not how it all works.

Are we to assume that all people have past lives, and that people can usually remember their past lives? How many of them? How much information? If people are reincarnated numerous times, how would they maintain an ego in the present tense, if they are also all of these other people, as well? Or is the belief that only slivers of memories from past lives somehow slip through, and only occasionally? I ask these questions in earnest, as I really don't know much about it, but I'm curious and more than a bit skeptical. 

Thanks!

You know, I'm not so much concerned with the end game as I am with the notion that "something is going on" that isn't explicable by the current scientific paradigm as far as these cases go. So for me I haven't really tried to work out how the process might work, if you want to call it a process - I don't know if everyone has a past life and reincarnates (and the authors of these books echo that sentiment); and I certainly don't think that if there is reincarnation that everyone is capable of remembering it. Indeed, if it is real, most people can't remember it. 

All the questions you asked me are of that nature, so I don't want to answer them too speculatively. I'm more interested in this research for the implication it has on our current understanding of mind and reduction to the brain, including memory. 

Of course, the default judgment should be of one of skepticism - as mine was before looking into it. I have read Tucker's first book, as well as listened to multiple interviews he's given and read some of the cases from his second book. I've read excerpts from some, but only a small portion of, Stevenson's work. From the cases I have read, given the methodology and legitimate effort at keeping the cases as scientifically rigorous as possible (which, when dealing with actual people, is difficult, as medical researchers and psychologists would attest to), I believe the cases are extremely impressive as a whole. Some are weaker, some are probably fraud or not great evidence of anything, but the majority are very difficult to explain away with what some might call "ordinary" means. Others are so strong as to put any sort of explanation by normal means in serious doubt, if one is genuinely trying to be unbiased or take a neutral POV. At the end of it all, the only thing one can say to dismiss the cases (as Leuders so wonderfully demonstrated) is that it's all fraudulent or something similar in nature, i.e. no real explanation with regards to how these things might be "naturally" occurring (in contrast with something like, say, NDEs). Which, if you've actually read all of them, is just an incredibly weak cop out. 

So I'm not really focusing on its implications in terms of literal reincarnation - that may or may not be the case, it may be part of a larger reality, etc., I really don't know or pretend to know. But what I do know is, having read these cases and familiarized myself with the work these researchers have done, I am confident that the "normal", naturalistic and reductive model of consciousness cannot accommodate these results.

The scientific skeptic view is that reincarnation does not exist. All alleged cases can be explained by cryptomnesia, fraud, coincidence or false memories. You can check out Paul Edwards book for a good example of this position.

That's not a scientific view, because it isn't based on anything that has been demonstrated by scientific research. Don't claim science as a buzzword as if it adds something to your statement. That is a purely skeptical view and nothing more. The research was conducted in as scientific a manner as possible given the circumstances. I'm a pretty skeptical person and come from an actual science background; I don't take methodology lightly.

For me, if those are the explanations given for the broad and well documented research by Tucker, Stevenson, and others, I'm perfectly content with that. Fraud, coincidence and false memory can explain some cases; they can't explain them all, and when someone tries to use them to do so, it tells me that they just don't have a good explanation via "ordinary" means. 

Instead of painting with the broadest paintbrush possible, could you tell me your thoughts specifically with regards to the case presented in the OP? Are you personally familiar with the cases and research, or do you take Paul Edwards' word for it?

Edit: Didn't even see Ninshub's "non-moderator" comment, but it seems he caught the same inconsistency as I did.