Reincarnation Research

[Thomas Knierim]

The full 90-minutes documentary that shows the work of regression therapist Peter Ramster in the early 80s is now available on YouTube. In the film, four Western women are interviewed, regressed, and then taken to the locales of their (alleged) former lifes, where their claims are checked. All in front of running cameras. Local historians assist in the clarfication of detailed historical facts and are analysed by witnesses who accompany these trips. Along with Ian Stevenson's book "20 cases suggestive of reincarnation" this is probably the most compelling material available today in view of reincarnation reasearch.

Click on this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HayY1yyXnn0 or simply do a YouTube search for "reincarnation regression".

Cheers, Thomas

[the_aphid]

Thanks for the link Thomas. This left me contemplating reincarnation for a number of hours...

I got to thinking, that there is a common ground of truth between the seemingly contradictory views of rebirth (no self) and reincarnation (self). This came to mind when wondering if there are any individuals who claim to have memories of concurrent past lives. Perhaps it is in the method of hypnotic regression techniques to identify what is actually a collective unconscious (no self) as a distinct and 'verifiable' past life (identity - self).

Both views are correct within the scope of their inspection. Just like light can be viewed as a particle and a wave...if that makes sense.

[Thomas Knierim]

I got to thinking, that there is a common ground of truth between the seemingly contradictory views of rebirth (no self) and reincarnation (self).

Good point.

My understanding is that the self is sort of a mirage, or a "construct" if you will. It has psychological and social purpose. What we call self is a conglomerate of personality, tendencies, likes and dislikes, and bodily aptitudes and features. Some parts of this composite self are pretty constant throughout life, others change. The ones that are constant may change over multiple life times, so ultimately there may not be an abiding self, hence, the teaching of no-self. On the other hand, the self can be hypothesized as a realisation of potential and there could be a superset of potential of which different parts get realised in different lifetimes. The parts that become realised are more tenacious so to speak, and may materialise yet again in another life. Otherwise it is difficult if not impossible to explain how human beings can attain spiritual perfection or enlightenment. If every life was a complete "reboot", no one would get anywhere or would they?

Anyway, this is quite speculative.

The important thing about Peter Ramster's reincarantion research is that it presents pretty good empirical evidence for reincarnation in at least some cases. I think its on equal footing with the research conducted by Ian Stevenson (20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation), which is equally compelling. The sceptics among us will have to explain this, or rather explain this away, which surely becomes more difficult as more data is gathered using methods acceptable to scientists. One unique thing about Peter Ramster's research is that he videotaped the sessions and explorations and he did so before the time of the Internet. Today, the Internet allows people to find out details about obscure facts in remote locations, which would make some claims less credible.

Cheers, Thomas

[the_aphid]

The parts that become realised are more tenacious so to speak, and may materialise yet again in another life. Otherwise it is difficult if not impossible to explain how human beings can attain spiritual perfection or enlightenment. If every life was a complete "reboot", no one would get anywhere or would they?Interesting point. However, even if every life were a complete "reboot", you could still attribute any or all spiritual perfection to the development of a stimulating culture. Through the perpetuation of spiritual practices and teachings, individual beings devoid of any true 'self' could become liberated, simply because these teachings become part of the environment within which individuals grow. However, this might mean that enlightenment, or all sentient existence, would be determined. That we are born as slaves of nature and nurture, genes and memes, and in some (albeit rare) circumstances we can be surrounded by an environment that provides all the necessary stimuli to yield liberation. :think:

Relating to the thoughts discussed in the Consciousness and the Brain (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2820) thread over in the Philosophy forum, I have been wondering lately if sentience or consciousness is evolving. Or rather, that the human ability to sense the conscious medium is evolving. Similar to the way that the eye has been adapting over great periods of time to detect a wider range of colours, shapes, and resolutions, the brain as the 'consciousness organ' could be adapting to view this 'source' or 'collective unconsciousness' in greater clarity.

If this were the case, I could imagine memories of past-lives and dreams having similar functions, just on differing temporal scales. Throughout the course of the day, you sense the environment around you (5 senses) and store the majority of this information in recesses of your mind to be reconsidered and organized in the dream state. However, this information is also subjected to the vortex of conscious contemplation, and the product of a lifetime of contemplation might manifest, like you suggest, as a "superset of potential" to direct beings in future lives.
The important thing about Peter Ramster's reincarantion research is that it presents pretty good empirical evidence for reincarnation in at least some cases. I think its on equal footing with the research conducted by Ian Stevenson (20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation), which is equally compelling.I agree, it certainly warrants investigation. I am particularly amazed by Stevenson's comparisons between birthmarks and birth defects with the wounds and scars of the deceased. If there is truth to these claims it would mean our physical bodies (not just our mental states) can be influenced by previous existence. I have to admit I am far more skeptical of those claims than I am now of reincarnation...however, it wasn't too long ago that I found claims of reincarnation unconvincing.

[kris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_qzRpSxHEk

[Thomas Knierim]

Relating to the thoughts discussed in the Consciousness and the Brain (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2820) thread over in the Philosophy forum, I have been wondering lately if sentience or consciousness is evolving.

Consciousness is the key to understanding all these things about reincarnation, OBEs, NDEs and other "paranormal" phenomena. Unfortunately, there is no viable scientific theory of consciousness, at least not at this time. If one is to believe the "mysterians", there will never be one, but I think that question is still open. While we need to continue scientific consciousness research, we just have to accept our ignorance for the moment and explore consciousness via other pathways. That means personal experience, of course. Very error-prone, I know, but there is currently no other way.

I have to admit I am far more skeptical of those claims than I am now of reincarnation...however, it wasn't too long ago that I found claims of reincarnation unconvincing.

Well, you have to look at the individual cases. There are a few hoaxes and there are inconclusive cases. But there are also many compelling cases. A lot of research has been done in the past 50 years. Some of the names to look for -besides Ian Stevenson and Peter Ramster- are Jim Tucker, Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Michael Newton, Dr. Walter Semkiw. Many of these people are therapists who came to past life regression by coincidence. Look at the empirical evidence and weigh the results. Ian Stevenson alone has 2500 cases on file. There are many video clips about reincarnation and past life regression on YouTube.

In many of the documented cases, people remember minute and obscure details of their previous lifes. When these facts are empirically proven, there is a strong case. A strong case means that there is a very small chance of statistical anomalie, confabulation, or suggestion. There are many strong cases, hence, I think that we have strong evidence at this point. Not conclusive, but strong. Certainly stronger than in other PSI fields, such as telepathy, telekinesis, ghosts, UFOs and what have you.

Past life regression is now often used in psychotherapy, but I am interested in this question as a philosopher, not as a therapist or healer. This simply means I want to know whether it is true or false and what ontological conclusions follow from either. It is an extremely important question, because it has far-reaching implications. I can think of many common-sense arguments in favour of rebirth/reincarnation, but here we speak about empirical evidence. Well worth the effort of study, I suppose.

Cheers, Thomas

[kris]

This here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5965wcH2Kx0) is one of the better documented cases in America. I first saw it on ABC News couple of years ago.

[kris]

Another link (http://www.fox8.com/wjw-reincarnation-txt,0,1190900.story)