Nov 19, 2010 -- 12:41PM, mainecaptain wrote:

SG is correct.  There is no provable facts that reincarnation is real or truth. And before anyone jumps on me. I am a believer.

Weelll, I'm not so sure about that. I think that the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and his successor Dr. Jim Tucker come closer than anything else we've seen thus far in establishing a basis for the idea that reincarnation is an as yet not understood natural process.

It's been a good while since I read Stevenson's stuff, but as I recall he was quite levelheaded about what he was doing and completely dismissed as too easily manipulated anything obtained by hypnotic regression as well as "recollections" claimed by older children and adults. Too easily contaminated by material from other sources, the specific source of which was forgotten while the details were mistakenly believed to be the person's past life memories. This is why both Stevenson and Tucker focused upon children who spoke of past lives spontaneously shortly after learning to talk. 

Stevenson's early popular summation of his work with mostly Asian children was entitled Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, because that was his attitude first and foremost. He was frank in dismissing or qualifying those cases which he determined likely involved children believing they remembered things that they could have been told or had overheard adults discussing.

I think it quite misplaced to characterize Stevenson's attitude toward the cases he concluded had merit as demonstrating the children had paranormal perceptions. I'd be very interested in a source citation for his having said or implied any such thing. I've never encountered such a conclusion on his part to the best of my recollection.

As far as I'm aware, Tucker now continues the effort to establish a solid file of cases that have held up in terms of verified details in an attempt to establish that rebirth does in fact occur. If these children are all merely gifted psychics, then it stands to reason that they would be able to demonstrate that ability in other ways than simply claiming to have been another person in a previous life. I'm not sure what other "paranormal perceptions" would be thought to produce the very detailed cases that Stevenson and Tucker concluded had merit. Occam's razor and all that.

Admittedly, we simply don't know as yet what leads very young children to make these claims about people and places often very far removed from their own or their family's experience. That they are reborn makes the most sense to me. 

Nov 23, 2010 -- 3:27AM, Jm8 wrote:

By 'paranormal perceptions' I didn't mean 'psychic' in the usual sense. (Maybe I shouldn't have used that term.) I meant paranormal as 'unusual' or 'inexplainable in a common way'. As I said, the reincarnation seems to me the most natural explanation since the alternative ones I mentioned are understood as different by nature in the Vedic tradition....

Ah...thank you for clarifying your meaning for us.

I suggest neither the late Dr. Stevenson nor Dr. Tucker would so characterize their data. The intent of each was/is to amass details and verify as many as possible in order to try to establish that this is indeed rebirth and not something else as yet inexplicable. I do not believe that either would use your term since it is too easily understood in the way I thought of--having psychic ability--as well as in others that neither man would consider scientific and capable of being proven.

As far as I'm aware, neither has stated that he thinks such details given by these very young children are indeed proof of rebirth but only tends to think they might be.

Nov 23, 2010 -- 12:07AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Nov 19, 2010 -- 12:41PM, mainecaptain wrote:

SG is correct.  There is no provable facts that reincarnation is real or truth. And before anyone jumps on me. I am a believer.

Weelll, I'm not so sure about that. I think that the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and his successor Dr. Jim Tucker come closer than anything else we've seen thus far in establishing a basis for the idea that reincarnation is an as yet not understood natural process.

It's been a good while since I read Stevenson's stuff, but as I recall he was quite levelheaded about what he was doing and completely dismissed as too easily manipulated anything obtained by hypnotic regression as well as "recollections" claimed by older children and adults. Too easily contaminated by material from other sources, the specific source of which was forgotten while the details were mistakenly believed to be the person's past life memories. This is why both Stevenson and Tucker focused upon children who spoke of past lives spontaneously shortly after learning to talk. 

Stevenson's early popular summation of his work with mostly Asian children was entitled Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, because that was his attitude first and foremost. He was frank in dismissing or qualifying those cases which he determined likely involved children believing they remembered things that they could have been told or had overheard adults discussing.

I think it quite misplaced to characterize Stevenson's attitude toward the cases he concluded had merit as demonstrating the children had paranormal perceptions. I'd be very interested in a source citation for his having said or implied any such thing. I've never encountered such a conclusion on his part to the best of my recollection.

As far as I'm aware, Tucker now continues the effort to establish a solid file of cases that have held up in terms of verified details in an attempt to establish that rebirth does in fact occur. If these children are all merely gifted psychics, then it stands to reason that they would be able to demonstrate that ability in other ways than simply claiming to have been another person in a previous life. I'm not sure what other "paranormal perceptions" would be thought to produce the very detailed cases that Stevenson and Tucker concluded had merit. Occam's razor and all that.

Admittedly, we simply don't know as yet what leads very young children to make these claims about people and places often very far removed from their own or their family's experience. That they are reborn makes the most sense to me. 

I lost this thread and just found it again. I have no problem with reincarnation being a proven fact.  I had not come across the Doctro you sited, I will ad them to my list of things to investigate and read myself. Thank you.

Dec 16, 2010 -- 9:04AM, Jm8 wrote:

An addition to my previous entries: As far as the claim of a demoniac possession behind reincarnation memories goes, it could be easily tested by an exorcism. Hope this helps. Hare Krsna Your servant, bh. Jan www.vrindavan-dham.com www.veda.harekrsna.cz dvaitaM bandhAya mokSAt prAk prApte bodhe manISayA bhaktyarthaM kalpitam dvaitaM advaitAd api sundaram "Duality is bondage before moksa and wisdom after realization. The duality accepted for the purpose of bhakti is sweeter than even non-duality." (from mangalacarana to Advaitasiddhi sara sangraha by Madhusudana Sarasvati, former advaitin)

>>>>>> Do the Veda and Puranas talk about reincarnations?

Dec 17, 2010 -- 12:07PM, BDboy wrote:

Dec 16, 2010 -- 9:04AM, Jm8 wrote:

An addition to my previous entries: As far as the claim of a demoniac possession behind reincarnation memories goes, it could be easily tested by an exorcism. Hope this helps. Hare Krsna Your servant, bh. Jan www.vrindavan-dham.com www.veda.harekrsna.cz dvaitaM bandhAya mokSAt prAk prApte bodhe manISayA bhaktyarthaM kalpitam dvaitaM advaitAd api sundaram "Duality is bondage before moksa and wisdom after realization. The duality accepted for the purpose of bhakti is sweeter than even non-duality." (from mangalacarana to Advaitasiddhi sara sangraha by Madhusudana Sarasvati, former advaitin)

>>>>>> Do the Veda and Puranas talk about reincarnations?

The 14th chapter of the Bhagavid-gita also describes it.