Rebirth - Note 3

The Problem of Rebirth - Rebirth – Note 3 – Pg 5 … continued from Note 2

We are not able to assert against the sceptic any such dominant probability or any such certitude on behalf of the theory of rebirth. We do not possess much of a so called ‘scientific’ evidence of rebirth.

In the absence of sufficient ‘scientific’ evidence of rebirth, we are limited in our assertion of the theory of rebirth against the barrage of questions from the skeptic. Even the assertion of Pythagoras, who is one of the greatest of the sages, that he fought at Troy under the name of the Antenorid and was slain by the younger son of Atreus doesn’t hold any ground. His identification of the Trojan shield is also not convincing. We need a CONVINCING PROOF. This is the demand of our intellect which is under the influence of our crude sensations. In the face of such limitations, the proponents of reincarnation come up with an intellectual proposition. Their theoretical argument is that the theory of reincarnation accounts for all the phenomenon we observe in the external world. Therefore it must be true. This is only a deduction and not a proof. Granted that this a plausible theory. But still it falls of giving any conclusive evidence. Granted that the theory of rebirth coupled with that of Karma gives us a simple, symmetrical and beautiful explanation of things. But then let us not forget that once upon a time even the theory of Spheres - which has since been discarded - also gave us a simple, symmetrical and beautiful explanation of the heavenly bodies. This theory has now been rebuffed with yet another theory which is much more complex, Gothic and shaky in its symmetry. As per this new theory we accept as truth of the matter that an inexplicable order evolved out of chaotic infinities. If we are relentlessly frank and honest in our pursuit of truth, then very soon we will realize that even this not the whole truth. There is more to it. There is much that is yet to be discovered. For this reason we can not accept the reincarnation theory as final proof only because of its  ‘Simplicity, Symmetry and Beauty’. 
..... to continue

...... inspired by Sri Aurobindo

Rebirth and Karma - Note 2

The Problem of Rebirth……. Sri Aurobindo Section 1 : Rebirth and Karma …. contd................. Shrikant Soman .............. Pg 261-263 …. Contd from earlier note

Let us for the sake of arguments assume that we can have the physical memory of past lives or of such a psychical awakening. Will then the theory of rebirth be taken as ‘proved’ ? I doubt very much. We now hear of many such instances of very confidently proclaiming the memory of past lives. We do not have any ‘verification’ of such an evidence with the aid of any instrument which can only give credence to the results of psychical research. In these circumstances, the sceptic can always challenge these claims as a mere fiction and imagination unless and until they are placed on a firm basis of evidence.

Next, even if we are able to verify the facts, the conclusions derived from these facts can also be challenged. The sceptic can say that they are not really the memories of the past lives. They were already known to the person alleging them by ordinary physical means. They may also have been suggested to him by other people. These are then converted into reincarnate memory. This could have been done either by conscious deception or by a process of self-deception and self-hallucination.

Further next, let us assume that we are somehow able to surmount these challenges with very strong and exceptionable evidence which could not be smashed by the earlier skepticism. Even in these circumstances, the memory of past life may still not be accepted as a proof of rebirth. The mind can discover a hundred theoretical explanations for a single group of facts.

The skepticism of modern speculation and research is casting its shadow on all psychical theory and generalisation. The theory or rebirth is no exception to it.

Take for example the case of automatic writing or of communication from the dead. The scientists have disputed as to whether the phenomena indeed proceed from outside – from disembodied minds. It is possible that it originated from within, from the subliminal consciousness. We also do not know for sure as to whether the communication is actual and immediate from the dead person. It is possible that it is the uprising to the surface of a telepathic impression. This impression came from the mind of the then living man but has since remained submerged in our subliminal mentality.

Similar objections can also be raised to the evidences of reincarnate memory. It can be said that there is a power of a certain mysterious faculty in us. It is a consciousness that can have some inexplicable knowledge of past events. But that these events may belong to other personalities than ours. Our attribution of them to our own personality in past lives is an imagination, a hallucination. It could also be an example of a mental error arising out of the self-appropriation of things and experiences perceived as ours but which are not of our own.

We can have ample evidence to prove the theory. But these may not be enough to the sceptic – at least for the theory of rebirth. It is likely that we are able to have sufficiently ample, exact, profuse and intimate details of the memory of past lives. In such circumstances these evidences will create an atmosphere which would lead in the end to a general acceptance of the theory of rebirth by the human race as a moral certitude. However, even if it were so, the PROOF of the THEORY to the SCEPTICS may still not be adequate as a convincing argument. Acceptance by the human race is one thing and acceptance as a proof by the skeptics is another.

Let us understand that most of the things that today we generally assume to be truth are actually no more than moral certitudes. Take for example the theory that the earth revolves on its own axis. We have the profoundest unshakable faith in this theory. But as has been pointed out by a great French mathematician, the fact has never been conclusively proved. We can at most say that this theory ‘fits’ well into certain observable facts – that’s all. Who knows whether this theory may get replaced by another theory over a period of time. We should not forget that all observed astronomical phenomena (like the movement of planetary bodies in the cosmos) were admirably accounted for by the ancient theories of spheres. And then came Galileo with his “And yet it moves” statement which disturbed the infallibility of Popes and Bibles and the science and logic of the so called learned experts.

Even the Newtonian laws could one day get challenged by yet another set of theories (When Sri Aurobindo made this statement, the theories of Einstein have not yet arisen on the horizon. Einstein proved the postulation of Sri Aurobindo in later years) – which actually happened later on when Einstein proposed his now famous and landmark theories of relativity and other theories. This exactly is the ever-perplexing and inherent plague of our reason. It starts by knowing nothing. It has then to deal with infinite possibilities. This has to go on until we actually know what is behind them. Till that time we have to give infinite number of possible explanations of any given set of facts. This makes a full circle and in the end we really know only what we observe. And even this is subject to a haunting question. We may say that ‘green is green and white is white, although it appears that colour is not colour but something else that creates the appearance of colour’.

We have to understand that beyond the observable facts we need to be satisfied with reasonable logical satisfaction, dominating probability and moral certitude. This is so when we get ourselves confined in the sense dependent reason. However, when we realise that we have faculties in us which are higher than the sense dependent reason and which are awaiting development and full manifestation in us, then we can arrive at greater certainties and realise the higher truths.

Rebirth - Science and Philosophy

Notes by Shrikant Soman based on the book title 'Problem of Rebirth' by Sri Aurobindo.............. Pg 1 and 2
The theory of reincarnation is an age old theory from time immemorial. We may accept it or reject it as per our preoccupations. We may accept it as a result of ancient psychological experience. We can treat it as Truth because of the fact that this experience is always renewable and verifiable. On the other hand we may reject this theory as mere philosophical dogma. We may treat it as an ingenious speculation. Whether we accept it or not, this belief will always endure throughout the human existence. It has thus so far been endured ever since the thinking man appeared on earth.

Earlier, this doctrine used to pass in Europe under the grotesque name of ‘transmigration’. This name was associated with the humorous image of the soul of Pythagoras migrating, a haphazard bird of passage from the divine human form into the body of a guinea-pig or an ass.

The philosophical aspect of this theory was seen in the Greek word ‘metempsychosis’. It was an admirable but rather unmanageable work. It means the insouling of a new body by the same psychic individual. The Greek language is adept in its clever expression of thought in the word. We could not perhaps find a better expression to this word ‘metempsychosis’. However when we migrate this word into English language, it loses the subtle sense contained in the original Greek word. It then becomes more of a long and pedantic expression. It was therefore gone out of use in English language. The current popular word is ‘Reincarnation’. However this word is more superficial in its meaning and it raises many questions. I prefer the expression ‘rebirth’. This word goes more near to the Sanskrit word punarjanma, meaning ‘again birth’. This word has a very wide meaning though it is ‘colorless’. The word ‘rebirth’ is more ‘focused’ to the fundamental idea of the term which takes us to essence of this doctrine.

To our modern scientific mind, rebirth is only a speculation and a theory. It has never been really proved by the methods of modern science. It has not been accepted by the modern man with critical mind which is being groomed under the scientific culture. At the same time, it has also not been disproved. The modern science does not know anything for sure about the before-life or an after-life of the human soul. In fact it does not know anything at all about the human soul in the first place. It can also never know about it with its so called scientific methods. The province of the modern science stops at the border of human flesh, brain, nerve, the embryo and its formation and development. The modern critic does not have any instrument by which the truth or untruth of the rebirth can be established. Actually the modern criticism is not a very efficient truth finder at all. This is inspite of its pretensions to searching investigation and scrupulous certainty. It is impotent outside the sphere of the immediate physical world. Though it is good at discovering data, it has no means of being very sure of its theories derived from this data. The only exception is when the conclusions are very obvious from the data themselves. The theories of the modern science derived from the data in one generation of humanity get disproved in the next generation of humanity.

In the case of any historical assertion having any doubtful validity, the modern science can not verify the same with any surety. Take for example the case of Jesus Christ. Even after the century of debates, it has not even been able to tell us in clear affirmative or negative way the historical truth of the existence of Jesus Christ. If this be so, then how can we expect it to say with any surety about the validity of the doctrine of rebirth. We need to accept that this doctrine is a stuff of psychology. It must be decided more by psychological than physical evidence.

The arguments of both the supporters as well as opponents of this theory are often weak or futile. Even at their best, they are insufficient to either prove or disprove anything in the world. For example, the opponents of this theory very often put forward the argument that we have no memory of our past lives. This is their ‘sure shot’ case. As we have no memory of past lives, therefore we have no past lives – so the argument goes. These opponents consider themselves as something more than ‘intellectual children’. This is amusing. This argument proceeds on psychological grounds. Fine. Taking this reasoning further in the psychological domain, we have to consider the very nature of our ordinary or physical memory of a normal person. Forget about the past lives. Just consider the current life. How much do we remember of our current life ? We have clear memory of our very recent past. It becomes vaguer and less comprehensive as we go backwards in time. At distant past, we remember only landmark events. At the farthest end, when we go back to the period immediately after our birth and very early childhood, it becomes complete BLANK. Even if we leave aside the minute details of our infant life, do we remember the mere fact, the simple state of being an infant on the mother’s breast ? If we do not remember our infancy then do we conclude, applying the logic of the opponents of rebirth theory, that we did not have our infancy or the much part of our early childhood ? Certainly not. Then how can we expect that the brute brain of man will remember his past lives when he can not even remember early part of his own present life ? Therefore disproving the reincarnation theory on the ground of non-memory is illogical and not tenable. The ratiocination of our ordinary human sapient insipiency is restricted within this close circle of false reasoning. It is very obvious that if we want to remember our past lives, we need to make use of our psychical memory. This remembrance of our past lives can be as just a simple fact of the existence of past life or in their detailed events and images. The psychical memory needs to be awakened so that the limits of physical impressions can be overcome. It will also have to overcome the limitations of the resuscitate impressions other than those stamped on the physical being by physical cerebration.