Back in the 2010 I think, I was writing a paper on the integration of cognitive neuroscience and transpersonal psychology and I wanted to include available empirical evidence that supports the notion of reincarnation and the non-locality of human consciousness.
Well, my professor at Rushmore turned my text right down, arguing that academical establishment frowns upon such notions. I yielded back then, but now I don’t really care much about the academia and so here we go:
There is a wide range of books written on the subject and while I do not necessarily subscribe to the New Age notions on the matter, I fully embrace the life work of Ian Stevenson, MD, who dedicated over forty years of his life to systematical research of re-incarnation.
Dr. Ian Stevenson, in his book Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect, p. 2 states (you can buy the book here >>):
“…The birthmarks and birth defects provide an objective type of evidence well above that which depends on the fallible memories of informants. We have photographs (and occasionally sketches) which show the birthmarks and birth defects. And for many of the cases, we have a medical document, usually a postmortem report, that gives us a written confirmation of the correspondence between the birthmark (or birth defect) and the wound on the deceased person whose life the child, if it can speak, will usually claim to remember.”
Is awareness or our consciousness really a product of warm, wet brain tissue? Is it really firmly localized in between our ears and does it cease to exist when the body is dead? If the answers to these important questions were no, what a monumental and decisive fact this would be for modern medicine in general and orthodox psychiatry in particular!
Dr. Stevenson, goes on to explain:
“…the birthmarks and birth defects derive importance from the evidence they provide that a deceased personality – having survived death – may influence the form of a later-born baby. I am well aware of the seriousness – as well as the importance – of such a claim and can only say that I have been led to it by the evidence of the cases.”
(Stevenson 1997, p. 2)
The consciousness or awareness indeed exists, and is obviously not a by-product of our brain matter. The non-locality of consciousness is one of the most accurate explanations for the etiology of birthmarks, if a rather radical one.
So, there was a person A who was killed and died and there we have a person B who was born at a different place and years after and who remembers clearly the circumstances of the person’s A death. And birthmarks are a rather strong evidence, arent they? Even more, we have a written documents that support the memories of that person B.
I don’t know about you, but the evidence is quite overwhelming. Soul or consciousness is obviously NOT limited by human body and brain and it certainly isn’t a by-product of chemicals is the brain.
What is love?
What is respect?
What is commitment?
Do these things survive the physical death?
In my experience, indeed they do.
I love this song:
“Love was when I loved you
One true time I hold to
In my life we’ll always go on
Near, far, wherever you are
I believe that the heart does go on
Once more you open the door
And you’re here in my heart
And my heart will go on and on
You’re here, there’s nothing I fear,
And I know that my heart will go on
We’ll stay forever this way
You are safe in my heart
And my heart will go on and on.”
– My heart will go on, by Celine Dion