REINCARNATION as a beacon to FUTURE ( RF )
REINCARNATION as the FACT
It would seem, in order to prove the reincarnation reality, it is necessary (and, perhaps, even enough) to confirm objectivity, physical reality, “physicalness” of novuses’ recollections, and so to be convinced, that they have not seemed to novuses like a dream (or a hallucination). A dream is a reality too, but only in the limited sense: that a slept person had really experienced it, but didn’t begin to fictionalize it already later, when he was already awake. A dream is a metaphysical reality.
To distinguish these realities is not always ease. So, a person who had already given up smoking (by means of the author’s help [ a2 ]), searched around persistently a cigarette stub when he has woken up. Physically real, “physical” event differs from a dream just because it leaves its traces – as material evidences of objective value of recollections about it.
And indeed, there is no lack of publications proving “physicalness” of novuses’ memories (see, for example, the end of the chapter 3 in [ 2 ]). However not less 15 years ago, it have appeared that such kinds of proof are not necessity already because quite sufficient proofs are gotten, and at that proofs which do not depend on novuses’ memory. This latter circumstance is essentially important for they gave no possibility to doubts whether novuses’ familiarity with the facts of senexes life is the result not of reincarnation but of "only" their ability in clairvoyance.
These proofs were gotten by an American psychiatrist Ian Stevenson. He was a doctor of medicine (M.D.), i.e. an avowed scientist, a person who has proved he is able to perform scientific observations, to experiment, to analyse results and to draw adequate conclusions. Novuses’ recollections gave merely cause to I. Stevenson for getting these sufficient proofs.
I. Stevenson's scientific reports on reincarnation began to appear more than 40 years ago [ 5à ]. He has found out that a part of "his" novuses, and this part (23,5 %) was not alone hundred of persons (210 cases), had congenital (!) peculiarities of their skins and/or skeletons, i.e. anatomic features, not dependent on memory. These peculiarities had clear conformity with senex’s body damages acquired during (!) lifetime. I. Stevenson named them as marks (or birthemarks) and clarified this concept with photos, three of which are seemed the most vivid [ 5 ].
Photo ISt-1: the senex had been hacked to death by impact into the place corresponding with congenital rough cicatricial growth of the novus’ skin.
Photo ISt-2: the senex had fallen with his hand into a farming machine type guillotine under its knife.
Photo ISt-3: the senex had perished under train wheels, and first of several traumas was just the amputation of her right leg.
In order to transform each of these facts from chatters, gossips and fantasy into valuable scientific data, a primary research observation, the huge, titanic work is fulfilled by I. Stevenson. Checking reliability of novus’s remembrances within the framework of the usual, traditional approach to the problem, he examined (investigated as the psychiatrist)
• the novus and all members of his family, and so confirmed value of their testimonies (using the common language, he checked whether they are mad);
• all members of senex’s family, i.e. those people who just could confirm (or refute) “physicalness” of novus’s memories;
• in cases with traumas – also witnesses of these events.
Besides – and that is especially valuable – in cases with fatal traumas, he managed often to find an official documentary verification of both evidences and facts themselves – the senex’s postmortem examination act.
These facts are decisive in the legal sense: just such evidences, based upon testimonies and documents, are admitted in our society and our time as irrefutable. And it is methodologically justified position, but not merely an arbitrary convention, not a formal tribute to traditions. Just such kind of proofs – by means of vivid demonstration – are used at proofs of the most elementary and the most doubtless (!) truths, like 2õ2=4. There is no another method.
These facts show how deep is the togetherness, commonality of a novus and his senex, how strong is the unity of their nature. That is just reincarnation reality as natural phenomenon proof. These facts leave not a slightest gap for doubts in scientific reliability of reincarnation as a natural phenomenon.
I. Stevenson's observations volume is huge. Quantity has passed into quality here. In order to admit a phenomenon as a reality, TAS – the Today’s official Academic Science – demands its experimental repeatability. This massiveness of I. Stevenson's observations compensates with great ease (in a superfluous measure) the impossibility of experimenting. Analogously: TAS is not able to experiment neither with a fireball, nor with a tornado (foto) – to reproduce them in laboratory (artificially) – but admits their reality. However, they leave sometimes after themselves destructions, to ignore which is much more difficult than imperceptible and inconspicuous reincarnation (1), and (2) unlike reincarnation both the fireball and a tornado have some (though not generally admitted, but) explanations.
TAS does not admit reincarnation as an objective reality. TAS takes such a position concerning many phenomena which TAS is not able to explain. Instead of to confess honestly this inability, TAS declares the facts (phenomena) themselves as non-existent at all.
But it is the problem not of facts, but the methodological problem of TAS.
Facts, phenomena exist not because someone has explained them or only has found them out. Distant planets have been discovered quite recently (starting with Uran in 1690), after the invention (1609) of a telescope by G. Galilei (1564-1642). It does NOT mean, that they began to exist only after their discovering.
I. Stevenson did not try to explain reincarnation, as well as his predecessors too. He has completely concentrated on the proof of existence, reality of reincarnation as the scientifically reliable fact, and has limited himself in this. On the other hand, if it is already made, our publication would lose its urgency.
In order to discuss (later) problems caused by reality of reincarnation, there is not a strict necessity to explain it. Assurance of this phenomenon reality (secured owing to I. Stevenson) is enough. Nevertheless, for completeness of illumination of these problems, let’s interrupt discussion of them, and consider reincarnation’s natural mechanisms.
We’ll begin with consideration of it as the memory phenomenon.