Strangely, there is some evidence to support a belief in the reincarnation process. Extended research by Dr. Ian Stevenson and other unquestionably able and objective people have investigated very young children who had claimed to remember a previous life. Their memories have been confirmed by others. Thus there was no denial of the accuracy and reality of such memories. The literature is full of such stories. Initially, the children came from the Indian sub-continent; but now the source territories are in the Middle East, in Europe, and in the Americas. Cultural conditioning has been ruled out.
Through auto-hypnosis, I have attempted to recall my past lives. All that I managed to see were certain geographical locations. These locations repeated themselves. And I have never been near that terrain, nor do I have a clear idea where it might be. My 2 past lives, as presented by that clairvoyant guided by the spirit of a Healer, did resonate with my impressions. I have to admit that I may have erred in rejecting them at that time. I think that I was too busy defending my past lives as my personal property. Or, it may be that I remain a closet sceptic.
But then apparently clever people continue to insist that believers in the reality of reincarnation prove (yes, prove) their case. They are no different to those who require believers to prove the existence of God or the Creator; or to demonstrate to professional sceptics the reality of a psychic experience by repeating (thus verifying) this experience. How sensible is this requirement? How fair, since the challenger relies solely on the methodology of science – with its accepted limitations. Against that, how many theories in science are only temporarily-held speculative conclusions, eg. the Big Bang.
Does not the stance by professional sceptics, the atheists, and those who oppose anyone who does not accept their authority (in the church, in academe, or in politics) simply represent a cultural clash? The reality is that, in science, in formulating hypotheses flowing from a research conclusion, there is often a need to make a selection from a number of alternative hypotheses. It has been claimed that it is often the simplest hypothesis, or the easiest one to test, that is chosen; those ignored may, however, be more relevant. Then, an eminent academic scientist was reportedly asked why current research was always within accepted frameworks, when challenging the parameters may take the research closer to a clearer understanding. The allegedly reply was that his life span would not be long enough to warrant going beyond the walls of relative certainty.
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 