Reincarnation: Fact or Fancy?
By Peter Matthews, B.Sc.
Copyright 2011 Peter Matthews
Smashwords Edition
Smashwords Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person,please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Chapter 3 Compensation and Retribution
Chapter 4 The Process of Reincarnation
On the subject of reincarnation, opinion is divided, often quite strongly, especially by those who feel that it is nonsense or contradictory to their faith. Of course we do not know whether it is a reality or not and our opinion will not make any difference, other than to us. Often there is a misunderstanding of what reincarnation is leading to the speculation that it is all nonsense. Many use as the basis of rejection that they wouldn’t want to come back but of course that is not an argument at all.
The purpose of this short book is to look at all the claims and counterclaims and to allow the reader to make up their own mind on the subject. Reams have been written giving examples of past life recalls and again reams written discrediting them – none of these examples is included here. It is a work of theory rather than example and hopefully at the end the reader will make a judgement for themselves. Whilst I have an opinion on the matter I have tried to remain neutral in this book and there is no significance to the fact that I put the case for reincarnation first then follow with the arguments against. To reverse the order would seem less logical.
Life either ends when we die or it does not. This brings about several possibilities, There is nothing, we are gone forever. Or we take the traditional view that we all end up in Heaven (or perhaps Hell). Perhaps we travel to higher realms in a spirit form and maybe pass through several levels before reaching our final resting place. And there is the final suggestion, we come back again. In other words we reincarnate.
Many people think we do, it is one of the oldest concepts of mankind and perhaps that in itself should give it some credence. The basic idea is found amongst all the so called primitive tribes today. For example in parts of Africa young babies who die are placed by the roadside in the hopes that a pregnant woman will pass by and the baby's soul enters the soon to be born infant. In Fiji the people think of the body as having two souls, one white and one black, the latter disintegrating with the body when death comes whilst the white soul carries on life as a kind of ghost for awhile before being reborn into a new child. Eskimos in Greenland hold a similar view.
The American Indians, believe in reincarnation as do Buddhists and Hindus. The ancient Chinese, Egyptians, Chaeldonians, in fact, most civilisations considered reincarnation as a fact. Indeed it is virtually the Christian alone who does not generally accept the idea. However Christianity evolved from Paganism, which did accept reincarnation. Many believe that original Christian thought included the concept of reincarnation but it was through the early Church councils that the idea was rejected. This was done simply in order to maintain their hold on the peoples of the time. If reincarnation is accepted and you come back to another life dependent upon your actions in the previous life, then a priest is not necessary for forgiveness, either through the Church or through Jesus: therefore the idea cannot be part of Christianity.
Consider the Christian view for a moment. In its current form a type of reincarnation is believed, for the belief is that on death the soul remains in an unconscious state to return to its original body on judgement day. This may be a slight simplification but nevertheless it is reincarnation, the soul returning to a physical body.
There are of course arguments for and against reincarnation. It is useful to look at them to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not it feels right for you. Clearly it is not possible ever to know for sure, but to have an opinion on this subject requires a certain amount of information. The arguments for reincarnation come in two categories, the argument itself and the types of evidence which are available. Initially the argument itself will be considered followed by the evidence. Some of this evidence may have alternative solutions and these will be discussed enabling a balanced conclusion to be reached.
One of the strongest arguments against reincarnation is that the number of people who have lived already is smaller than the number of people alive at present. If we do re incarnate then the number would be even lower as the number of souls is a small proportion of the number of lives. This means that there are not enough souls to account for the present population. This is a strong argument. There is of course an explanation. Firstly it is a question of how far back we go. It could be 7000 years or it could be from earliest man. If souls evolve through other kingdoms prior to mankind then there is plenty of room to account for this apparent anomaly.
Secondly, amongst the older souls that have re incarnated, there could well be new ones, coming into life for the first time. Some may be replacing those that gave left the earthly cycle, others may be adding to it. The numbers of new soul’s may well make up the apparent shortfall of reincarnated souls allowing for the current population.
The cycle of rebirth really fits in very well with nature for in the physical world things die and are then reborn. Acorns grow, form a tree, the tree dies but not before fresh acorns are seeded. This seems to be a natural cycle of life so if this is the case in the natural world then it seems reasonable to consider that the soul or spirit should follow a similar cycle. It is thought by some that Society itself is evolving, that is, each generation is supposedly wiser than the last. If there was no reincarnation it is difficult to see how this could be for surely Society would remain static? But if souls were reborn then the individuals forming that Society would slowly evolve also? True, if there was only one life then new souls could build upon what has gone before but this applies really to the material side of things, it does not explain the evolution of the personality from barbarism to ascetiscm.
Even physics offers an argument for the law of the conservation of energy simply means that nothing can be created or destroyed, it can be transformed but the relationship between mass and energy is the same. This being the case then, like the natural cycles of birth and death which we have considered, does it not seem reasonable that this same law could apply through all nature and therefore the soul as well? When the physical body dies it gives up energy, the soul, but then the soul needs to collect mass or energy to be in keeping with the law. A new body would fulfil that requirement nicely.
A scientist will reject reincarnation because it cannot be proved. The scientist will also reject mediumship and other psychic events for the same reason. But many things in life happen which cannot be explained by science. When considering any esoteric principle, whether it is psychic, reincarnation etc. then the method of the lawyer would seem more appropriate than that of the scientist. In other words on the balance of evidence (or probabilities) what is most likely to be the correct conclusion. This is really as far as we can go on such matters and explains also why opinions do differ.
Perhaps the strongest arguments for reincarnation are those of natural justice. To understand this properly it is necessary to understand the law of Karma which will be discussed fully in the next chapter. However its basics are useful here, it is simply that you reap what you sow. What you sow in this life you reap in the next. If there was just one life then surely it is very unfair? There are those born rich, others poor, some are healthy, and others are weak, for some life is sweet for others sour. One life would simply not be fair. It cannot just be what you make it, for you cannot help where or when you are born. With one life you have the luck of the draw and yet you may be judged on that one life. That does not really make sense but if you have several lives then these things fall into place, you have earned your life.
Similarly some people live to a very old age whilst others die at birth. If there was one life only would this be fair? If judgment of a person's life was made then it would be even less fair for the young have not had the time to develop themselves. However if life depended upon what went on before then there is reason for the length of the life.
If there is judgment at death then one lifetime would not be enough to acquire all the experiences necessary to go to heaven. If the object of life is to get to heaven and heaven is where God is, then it is necessary to be as much like Him as possible and one life simply is not enough. Indeed with life's experiences, based on the conditions that the soul was born into and its length of life, there would be an even greater inequality of souls waiting for what comes next. Some would be wise, others ignorant and so on. Would it be fair that all should go to the same place at the same time?
For those who accept the concept of original sin, does it really fit in with one life? If sin was brought into the world through another, then there must surely be a connection between that first soul and the last? If a soul simply left the body and went to heaven or waited for a judgment day there would be no continuity. The new souls would have no connection with what went before. So if there was an original sin for which we are still paying the price for, then surely this means that the soul link is continuous. The soul from the past keeps returning until one day that sin is expunged. In other words it reincarnates.
If on death the soul goes directly to heaven or hell, then the transition would surely be too great to do in one jump. However if all souls went the same way, which surely they must, then those who did not know about heaven and hell, let alone unbelievers, would surely suffer an even greater shock.
By considering matters such as these it is clear that the question of reincarnation cannot simply be dismissed for these are very real arguments. But there are also some compelling arguments why reincarnation should not take place and it is to these which we now look.
Those who do not accept reincarnation take different stances on why one person should have a good life and another poor. They may simply say that it is God's will or that life is like a lottery. One analogy is that of the Catherine wheel. With this idea the creator, or perhaps a type of group soul, continually throws off individual souls. These germinate from where they land, rather like a seed carried in the wind or dropped by a bird. Life could enter any human being and it is simply a matter of ' luck' where it lands. This does fit in very neatly with the natural way of things.
There are those who say that that reincarnation must be right because the soul evolves and collects up experiences to be reborn in the same way that a seed produces a plant which eventually dies casting out another seed. But the point here is that although the same type of plant would grow, it is not the SAME plant and that is the difference. So when a soul dies it may well be replaced by another but it is not the same one.
Equally, if the soul is destined to evolve, and there is little argument about that, (assuming the idea of a soul is accepted in the first place), then if on death it rises to a higher plane, or Heaven then surely that is evolution in itself? If that soul were to return to the physical world then it would be devolving, for the physical world is at the coarsest of vibrations and any others are advancement (notwithstanding factors mentioned elsewhere). Reincarnation would be contrary to the concept of onward progression of the soul. Whether this idea carries more weight than the counter argument presented earlier is up to the individual to decide.
Perhaps the strongest reason for not accepting reincarnation is simply that if we do have past lives, why do we not remember them? This is a very valid question and difficult to answer. One of the counter arguments is that we do in fact remember them as indicated by past life recall and regression therapy, but there are arguments as to whether these memories are genuine or not. Other explanations exist. If we have had past lives it would seem natural that we should remember them.
Another common explanation given as to why we don't is that it is not meant that we should. But what does that mean? It could mean, as others say, that to evolve good karma (see next Chapter) we must find our way anew through each life. To remember what had gone before means that the choice would not be pure. Bad Karma from a past life is often quoted as being the cause of a poor life now, whether it is materially, in health or whatever. For example some may say that if in your last life you were a mill owner who exploited his workers causing them to suffer in health then in this life you would be exploited and have poor health. If that was the case would there really be much point in subjecting a person to similar treatment themself if they could not remember their past life and therefore not know the reason for their discomfort. It is like punishing a child for something they did but without telling why they were being punished.
A further critiscm of this idea is simply numbers. Why, for example, were the former workers put in that position? They could not all have been mill owners in their past lives. Since misfortune generally outnumbers the fortunate then what had they all done before to deserve it? History does not indicate that people were that bad in times gone by.
There are other explanations as to why past lives cannot be remembered. For example how many people could recall what they were doing five years ago, or ten? How many recall childhood memories or perhaps more to the point, when such memories are recalled, how accurate are they? Memories fade with time and since a past life is so long ago it is hardly a wonder that it cannot be remembered.
Nevertheless important moments in a life are remembered. It might not be possible to give an account of what one was doing five years ago but the name of your spouse, employer, and the street where you live and so on would be. The same with younger age, certain events stand out. This being the case then surely a past life would not have been so bland that nothing could be remembered of it! Indeed the reverse is more likely to be the case. Agreed that some traumatic events may block the mind, but it is difficult to see how a whole life could be so traumatic that all is forgotten. Even in trauma forgetting does not include the whole life anyway, just that part surrounding the incident.