Should You Plan for Your Next Incarnation?

Sincerely, I would really like to find some rational, logical rejoinder to my argument (which is based on the actual human condition) that would somehow show that its bleak conclusion is invalid. But I have not encountered one as of yet. Other than just the reiteration of the teaching that "we as our souls" do make such choices and decisions, that we really are our souls in many deeply meaningful and loving ways, that suffering is temporary while love is eternal, and that the experience after physical death is a vast expansion of consciousness in which we directly experience these truths. This is basically an appeal to spiritual faith and is from the perspective of the soul not the human. Unfortunately this is not rational and logical enough in my mind to overcome the stark facts of the matter of the human condition.

I am unable to offer a rational argument out of this condition.

Certainly I don't share the bleak conclusion you have described. Nor do I share the bleak conclusions put forward by Steve001. There is something which I might call a 'state of mind' which comes into play. That's why I say it isn't a matter for rational argument. Shifting ones state of mind to joy rather than bleakness may be as instantaneous as the flicking of a lightswitch, or it may be the journey of a lifetime (or more).

I think constructing a different narrative may help, but this is something which we have to do for ourselves. The way we describe the world can affect the way in which we experience it. We could describe something as "A lot of people making loud noises" or we could describe it as "An uplifting musical performance". Both are true. In that respect it cannot be a matter of rational or reasoned argument, the leap from loud noises to beautiful music isn't one which can be achieved via a series of logical steps.


I don't believe in faith. Sometimes it may be necessary over some stages, but not as an answer. What I'd propose as an answer is much the same as in science. Actual experimental observations. Hands-on experience. The formulation of different hypotheses, testing each one. It's a very practical, hands-on activity. That indeed may be the whole reason we are alive here and now. To gain this hands-on experience. But there isn't a single hypothesis which must be applied, there are many alternative hypotheses.

The idea of 'grin and bear it' echoes to me perhaps an archetypal or stereotyped vision of some strict puritanical or presbyterian minister, forbidding music or dancing, I don't refer to any real-world example, but this is the picture I have, and this seems to go together with the idea of enduring a bleak existence. In this example, it is the worldview imposed which contributes to the bleakness, rather than the actual state of existence itself. I risk giving offence and missing the mark here, I don't know how else to express it. There are other ways. That's about all I can say.

Positing for the sake of argument that evidence amassed from verified memories of small children, birthmark cases, and other areas convincingly shows that we all reincarnate, I think that the notion of "planning for the next reincarnation" is naive in the extreme. 

This conclusion seems inevitable considering the cold hard facts of the human condition. The most important reason is because it is evident that the preferences of our current personalities have nothing to do with the choices made by whatever being it is that actually chooses the place, time, identity of the parents, circumstances, genetics, probable upbringing, probable challenges including genetically caused defects and diseases, etc. etc. Whatever is the mind, personality and memories of the being that makes such choices, it is alien from our present human personalities. That would presumably be the soul, a vastly greater being than the human personality and its memories.

As an existential fact, it must be "somebody else" that makes such choices and decisions.

I agree that planning for the next reincarnation is naive, but I don't believe in such soul, "somebody else" or "higher self" that makes these choices and decisions for us. There are some cases in which the previous personality chose his parents before he died. There are also cases in which the subject remembers choosing his parents before his birth.


Genetically caused defects, diseases and natural catastrophes etc. have physical causes. They are not forced upon us by some "higher beings".

Our Soul is not "somebody else", nor some mere other "higher being".

Our Soul is... us, albeit with a far greater awareness, with all of our culminated experience from countless lifetimes of existence.

Our past-life ego may indeed have a say, as it is an aspect of our Soul, but ultimately, it is us-as-Soul that makes the choice. And us-as-Soul may well just leave it to our ego to make the choice.

We may well decide to experience a miserable life, or a life with a severe birth defect or a disease, because it's something unique, and perhaps we chose it on a whim. Maybe we saw the suffering of others around us, and wanted to understand what it was like, first-hand.

Probably because the Soul is happy to try any path it finds interesting, as each life is a new opportunity for fresh growth. And we have countless lifetimes to find our way, so why not try something on a whim?

I agree that planning for the next reincarnation is naive, but I don't believe in such soul, "somebody else" or "higher self" that makes these choices and decisions for us. There are some cases in which the previous personality chose his parents before he died. There are also cases in which the subject remembers choosing his parents before his birth.

A few thoughts on this.

That's true - there are such cases. I believe they are rare. My argument that no one in their right mind would choose a future life of great suffering still holds, but I assumed that in making this choice the person has full knowledge of the challenges the upcoming child and resulting adult would have to deal with. In the various teachings that is supposedly part of the choosing and decision process - "what do I need to work on, and what experiences would in dealing with them further my spiritual growth?".

If in general the previous personality really makes the knowing deliberate choice of a future life of much suffering, this would imply that that previous personality must first be altered in major ways so as not to be concerned much about pain of various sorts. If the previous personality just chooses a future life with no knowledge or concern about predictable suffering in that future life, then again, the previous personality must first be altered or distorted in major ways. 

In many cases it would be obvious, and not require in-depth knowledge of genetics for instance, that the upcoming life would be very difficult - as for instance the extreme example I offered of the African child dying of starvation and of AIDS transmitted from the mother. It is hard to believe that the previous human personality would deliberately choose such a short and miserable existence. But short-lived children like this do in truth exist. Therefore whatever or whoever made the choice of such lives must necessarily not be the previous human personality, or at least not without major alterations or distortions such that it doesn't have the normal human aversion to pain.

One possibility would be that sometimes immediately after physical death the previous human personality might be in some sort of cloudy or dazed state of consciousness, where he/she is only aware of the need to come back, and really doesn't make any sort of informed decision. 

Genetically caused defects, diseases and natural catastrophes etc. have physical causes. They are not forced upon us by some "higher beings".

Yes, these have physical causes and are not generated by higher beings - they are part of the natural world. But that's not the point. The teachings clearly imply that in some cases "we" may deliberately choose a fetus that due to these physical causes will very probably grow into a child and maybe an adult who will experience great suffering. That is what needs to be explained - in such cases what does "we" really mean, and what information is available? The truth of a philosophy can be judged by how it handles extreme cases.

Our Soul is not "somebody else", nor some mere other "higher being".

Our Soul is... us, albeit with a far greater awareness, with all of our culminated experience from countless lifetimes of existence.

Our past-life ego may indeed have a say, as it is an aspect of our Soul, but ultimately, it is us-as-Soul that makes the choice. And us-as-Soul may well just leave it to our ego to make the choice.

We may well decide to experience a miserable life, or a life with a severe birth defect or a disease, because it's something unique, and perhaps we chose it on a whim. Maybe we saw the suffering of others around us, and wanted to understand what it was like, first-hand.

Probably because the Soul is happy to try any path it finds interesting, as each life is a new opportunity for fresh growth. And we have countless lifetimes to find our way, so why not try something on a whim?

It seems to me that there is a semantic problem here. The use of the words "we" and "us" and "our" appears to be mistaken. The male sense of "we" is defined in the dictionary as meaning essentially "himself". This in turn is defined as "his normal, healthy, or sane condition or self", or "that identical male one".

The soul is hardly identical to the normal, healthy self of the human personality and memories. It is something else, something far greater. "Somebody else"? I don't know for sure, but that feels right to me. It is only by courtesy that it can be termed the "I" or "myself" of the human personality and memories. This might be seen using the analogy of a human adult as opposed to the infant: yes - in some sense the same essence or self with some sort of continuity of consciousness, but in all other ways very different - far greater memories, very different and more complex personality. 

Following this analogy, yes, in some I believe minimal sense I the adult am the same person as the infant I once was, but I am really in most important ways a different and far greater and more complex being than the infant. It may be stretching the analogy, but it is apparent that decisions made by the adult are hardly ones that would be made or could be made by the infant.

I don't post this on the grounds that it is verified or accurate, but it might suggest a direction for this discussion. We collectively spend time considering this current life, and what may follow. Perhaps what comes before should be researched too.

It's probably worth adding as a rejoinder to the question asked in the thread title:  "Should You Plan for Your Next Incarnation?" that one school of thought gives a resounding No! as an answer.

That is, the idea that we should plan on NOT being incarnated. I don't mean by simply going to some other 'place' and staying there, but by breaking the cycle.

"How to break the cycle of incarnations" is a subject which is at the heart of some Eastern traditions.

We-as-ego doesn't really have a say in whether we reincarnate or not.

Even if we-as-ego decide not to, the Soul will choose to anyways, until the Soul decides that it's learned everything it wants to learn.

Therefore, the idea of "breaking the cycle" is meaningless.

Indeed, the idea presupposes that the cycle is involuntary, of which there is no evidence.

It seems to me that there is a semantic problem here. The use of the words "we" and "us" and "our" appears to be mistaken. The male sense of "we" is defined in the dictionary as meaning essentially "himself". This in turn is defined as "his normal, healthy, or sane condition or self", or "that identical male one".

You should realize that this is obviously not how I'm using the terms "we" and "us". I'm using them to refer to a person, whether it's you, or me, or Typos, etc, but in reference to either the whole of said person's existence, as Soul, or the incarnated portion of said existence, as the ego, per Carl Jung's definition.

The soul is hardly identical to the normal, healthy self of the human personality and memories. It is something else, something far greater. "Somebody else"? I don't know for sure, but that feels right to me. It is only by courtesy that it can be termed the "I" or "myself" of the human personality and memories. This might be seen using the analogy of a human adult as opposed to the infant: yes - in some sense the same essence or self with some sort of continuity of consciousness, but in all other ways very different - far greater memories, very different and more complex personality.

The Soul is the unbounded Whole of a person's existence. It experiences what it's dissociated ego aspect experiences, in full. However, the ego aspect is not aware of its full existence. That is, the Soul circumscribes all of the aspects of the current incarnate human personality, but also contains all of the experiences and memories of its previous incarnations.

Your Soul is not separate from you. It is because of the ego's dissociation from its full beingness that the Soul can appear as "Other".

The Soul always runs the show, because it is you, but infinitely wiser in scope. But, for the Soul to truly learn, it needs its ego-aspect to be ignorant of the process.

The Soul is akin to the wise, ancient elder, while the ego is very much like a child, to use an analogy.

You seem to presume that your Soul is somehow detached, cold, heartless, but that's your ego talking, out of fear of what you aren't aware of. Your Soul always experiences what you-as-ego experiences. It is only ever the ego that experiences the illusion of separation.

I will take another planet please, thanks.