Reincarnation (as a psychological notion, nearer to practice, but not philosophical, as the sansara) is (in the first approach) a specific anomaly of memory, is every of those cases/event when a person remembers his previous earth existence (incarnation, emyucwsiz). Refusal of the phenomenon, as a nature science one, by the community consciousness (from serious negation and up to ironic admission) is based upon two factors:
F1 – upon scanty persuasiveness of facts, confirming reality (physical reality) of events which postcarnatee (the terms, introduced by the author, are typed here and further by this font face) remembers as ones of his previous life, in which/when he was a precarnatee, and
F2 – upon inability to clarify the phenomenon by means (in the frames/limits) of the modern nature science (of scientific paradigm) - even merely as a psychical (non-physical) one.
Today both of the factors have lost their validity. Their groundlessness was revealed at least a decade ago.
F1. In 1992 at a scientific conference, in '93 in academic periodicals, then in the Internet - results of researches made/fulfilled by psychiatrist Ian P. Stevenson, M.D., the head of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Virginia School of Medicine & Division of Personality Studies (Health Sciences Center, University of Virginia, Box 152, Charlottesville, VA 22908), were represented [ 11 ]. There are a lot of quite convincing descriptions of reincarnation, but even on such a background Dr. Stevenson's researches are unique for they are not merely persuasive, but proving in judicial sense: they are based upon documents and attestation. Such proofs are just considered as irrefutable and definitive in our society in our time..
According to Dr. Stevenson a postcarnatee begins to inform of his previous life in the age of 2-3 years, i.e. at once/as soon as he is able to formulate so enough complicate information. Dr. Stevenson examined it by (besides others) interrogation of all members of both families (of a child-postcarnatee and of his precarnatee).
But more: in 210 cases (of his 895 observations as the whole) Dr. Stevenson obtained a kind of material evidence which confirms this information. These 210 postcarnatees had native anomalies of their skin (of its structure and/or pigmentation) and/or of their skeleton. Dr. Stevenson names them "marks". They severely correspond by their localization, and often by character, to the postcarnatee's body injuries, mainly to traumata, mainly to fatal ones.
Three photos, of those illustrating the notion of "mark", are seemed to be the most pictorial.
Photo 1: the precarnatee was hacked with a blow upon the place corresponding to the native cheloid scar of the postcarnatee's skin.
Photo 2: the precarnatee's fingers were cut in an industrial accident.
Photo 3: the precarnatee perished under train wheels and the right leg was just severed first.
Facts that precarnatees had those injuries were confirmed by eye-witnessed of the accidents, and, what is especially valuable, by documents: Dr. Stevenson succeed in studying (though not in every case) the statements of forensic dissections of precarnatees.
Each of these indisputable certainties makes (not merely allows) to admit the phenomenon of reincarnation as the physically reliable scientific fact. It would be seemed that the fact demands (in order to become a scientific one) the natural science explanation, and particularly (as minimum)
in what way can a postcarnatee remember a stranger man's (precarnatee's) life (or some its separate episodes),
in what way can he remember it as his own one, and
in what way can precarnatee's injuries influence/pass to postcarnatee's body –
– i.e. all that is the matter of the factor F2.
Dr. Stevenson himself doesn't try to find mechanisms of reincarnation, but entirely concentrates on proving its non-randomness as a fact, and limits himself to this.
F2. But the situation is sprung up diametrically opposite: the facts, found/established by Dr. Stevenson
• not so much require to be clarified, to obtain theoretical base, to be substantiated theoretically, but,
• but on the opposite: are themselvese the new practical confirmation for theoretical statements/theses
|
1 
2 
3