Some critical thoughts on reincarnation

This is from my part of an email exchange with my good friend Timothy Conway, who suggested I read Jim Tucker’s book summarizing the work of Ian Stevenson and his colleagues on reincarnation.

Regarding the topic of reincarnation, I'm broadly familiar with the summary of evidence from Ian Stevenson's extensive work on the subject, including a handful of specific case studies I've heard or read about over the years.†  I'm also aware of similar ideas from mediums and channelers and so on.  And, of course, I know that both Hindu and Buddhist literature includes lots of material on reincarnation.  I don't outright reject the possibility of a soul, or of metempsychosic continuity relating one life to another.  But I also don't share (and so am inclined to argue against) the psychological orientation of the many people who latch onto reincarnation because it serves some kind of wish-fulfillment function in them (the same as with afterlife belief).  In fact, I've long found the idea utterly abhorrent, to the point of genuinely struggling to understand why anyone would not only not be appalled by it, but even be comforted by it. 

[tangent] This has led me to speculate that there are two innate dispositions to being that one can embody: a "positive", accepting or affirming one, and a "negative", rejecting or denying one.  It seems most people embody the former orientation, and this can be seen as a boon to the extent that being is already the case, therefore having an accepting disposition puts them on a good footing with reality.  Of course, it's these folk who find the idea of narrative continuity across lives (including any possible afterlife) to be appealing.  Conversely, people with the latter orientation are, right from the start, at odds with reality since they want no part in the Sisyphean "play" of Lila, while (unbeknownst to many of them) they have no possibility of opting out of this play — because, indeed, it's what they are and what reality is! [/tangent]

Be that as it may, I find that there are also possibly deeper, more philosophically compelling reasons to take issue with the idea of reincarnation.  For one, the notion of karma inherited from "past lives" seems essentially no different from the concept of original sin in Christianity.  In the latter, one's lot in life is determined (to some extent) by the actions of alleged ancient forebears; in the former, one's lot in life is determined (to some extent) by the actions of alleged previous incarnations.  Now, while I happen to think that the concept of original sin might have an element of truth if interpreted allegorically (e.g., the "fall" relating to the onset of the apparent subject-object mode of perception in early childhood), the concepts of karma and rebirth are not typically interpreted allegorically but more literally.  That said, I think that, as with original sin, even karma and rebirth can make more sense with less "reaching" by interpreting it as, e.g., a metaphor for the reifying and concatenating tendency of conditioned mind to propagate itself via identification with past and future (rebirth), as well as with gain and loss/fruits of action (karma).  All of this can be seen and experienced in one's present life without an overlay of beliefs about past lives.

It's also possible that "past life memories" might be explainable as instances of tapping into collective memory.  Since the 'I' sense is, at its most fundamental level, entirely generic and traitless (save for the property of pure subjectivity or awareness), any patterned constellation of traits, thoughts, feelings, and memories forming a given character's life will automatically feel like one's own when animated (or, in this case, tapped into) by the generic 'I' sense.  In other words, just as 'I' am equally all beings everywhere right now, so too am 'I' any and all "past" being(s).  So, if two such "patterned constellations of traits" — one's present self and another seemingly prior one — coexist in the mind, they will both be felt as 'me', even if there isn't an actual (or metempsychosic) connection between them. 

Again, though, there might be; that is, the standard interpretation of reincarnation could very well be valid and correct.  I'm just providing an alternative explanation for the data (albeit, as alluded to above, for reasons of personal bias against the standard interpretation; I have no illusions about being a disinterested arbiter of truth in this whole discussion).  

One last related point I want to address concerns a quote of yours I saw on the Soul-Full Spirituality and Undying Consciousness page you linked to:

"...our real goal is not some 'heaven' but complete God-Realization or Buddhahood, waking up from the dream of being a born-dying-reincarnating 'me'."

Of course, you and I are completely aligned in the view that there is an absolute and unbound reality that is infinitely intelligent and conscious, and that all experiences are the play or dream of this absolute not-two-ness.  Where we might differ is that I don't see the conjured or dreamed experiences of this absolute source as being for any purpose or having any goal at all — but especially the goal of coming to some ultimate transcendent resting in and as unmanifest non-arising in a once-and-for-all sense.  Moreover, I think that the idea of there being such a goal is predicated on the view that separation and the suffering it fosters is akin to a cosmic mistake or wrongness that's only righted by waking up and thus "finally" transcending it.  (For the record, I suspect you don't actually view separation and suffering as a "mistake" exactly; rather, I'm suggesting it's at least tantamount to that view to aim for a "final" or absolute end to the dream of separation.)

Now, to be clear, I understand and agree that if one goes to sleep and proceeds to have a "bad" dream, one will benefit by waking up.  For that matter (to continue the analogy), even if one is having a "good" dream, it's still of benefit to wake up and see that it wasn't ultimately real.  But the idea that there's some final point at which no dreams will ever come again ("waking up from the dream of being a born-dying-reincarnating 'me'" as you put it here) just doesn't ring true to me. 

My own view is that, not only is this dream of life with all its suffering and (apparent) separation not a mistake, it's the very raison d'être of manifestation.  Yes, it's inherently gratifying and even unspeakably blissful to wake up to one's unborn not-two-ness.  But to posit that there's even a possibility of this source not plunging again (and again, and again, and again...) into amnesiac dreams of suffering selfhood is, I think, not correct.  But, as always, I may certainly be wrong.  For that matter, maybe I'm wrong in how I've interpreted your quote above.

_________________________

†  Without going into detail at this point, I will mention that one thing about Stevenson't case studies I find at least somewhat potentially problematic is the fact that most of them are from Asian cultures in which reincarnation belief is widespread enough to permeate the culture.  Of course, this in itself doesn't invalidate the evidence presented by these cases, but I think that there being such an abundance of evidence from Buddhist and Hindu cultures, and such a relative paucity of evidence from Christian and Muslim ones, is suggestive.

And speaking of those relatively rare Western cases, the one that seems to get trotted out most frequently as compelling is the James Leininger case from Louisiana in the U.S.  This case has been thoroughly investigated by Dr. Michael Sudduth, with findings that severely undermine the credibility of the case and its supposed evidence.  You can easily find all his writing on the topic on his blog, Cup of Nirvana.