Reincarnation Revisited Rationally

This document, "Reincarnation Revisited Rationally" by Ashok Aklujkar, presents a philosophical debate on the concept of reincarnation, primarily between two fictional characters, Mr. White-robe (representing a skeptical, scientific viewpoint) and Mr. Orange-robe (representing a believer in reincarnation, often drawing on Indian philosophical traditions). Mr. Triple-eye acts as a facilitator and commentator.

The core of the discussion revolves around the epistemological challenges of proving or disproving reincarnation from a modern, empirical scientific perspective.

Here's a breakdown of the key arguments:

Mr. White-robe's Position (Skeptical/Scientific):

• Lack of Empirical Evidence: Reincarnation cannot be empirically verified. It relies on faith or superstition, not testable data.
• Unscientific Method: The scientific method, as he understands it, requires replicable conditions and demonstrable cause-and-effect relationships. Reincarnation defies this.
• "Bad Company": The idea of reincarnation is linked to other concepts like ghosts and extraordinary psychic abilities (siddhis), which are also considered unscientific.
• Untestable Claims: Reincarnation assertions are not falsifiable; they don't allow for disproof, making them improper for scientific inquiry.
• "Given" Nature of Senses and Concepts: He prefers to accept the senses and conceptual schemes as given, avoiding the "chicken-and-egg" problem of which comes first, suggesting their interaction might be beginningless.
• Aberration vs. Evidence: Experiences reported by mystics or those claiming past-life memories are dismissed as "aberrations" or subjective perceptual errors due to altered mental states, not valid empirical evidence.
• Universality Required: For acceptance, an idea must be universally true, not just believed by a select group.

Mr. Orange-robe's Position (Pro-Reincarnation/Philosophical):

• Critique of Scientific Method: He challenges the absolute sufficiency of the current scientific method, questioning its ability to address all questions and its inherent assumptions. He suggests the boundaries of science are not fixed and can be expanded.
• Conceptual Models: He argues that a conceptual model can be considered scientific if it accounts for evidence, not solely on the basis of direct empirical replication, especially when dealing with complex phenomena.
• Nature of Senses and Mind: He probes the limitations of ordinary sensory perception and the possibility of the mind transcending these limits, suggesting a porous boundary between senses and mind.
• Heredity vs. Karma: He proposes that reincarnation, as an explanation for differences in human capabilities and inclinations, is no less logically sound than the heredity-environment model. He points out the difficulty in separating heredity and environment cleanly, arguing both models involve unseen factors.
• Arbitrary Definitions: He criticizes the definitions of "heredity" and "environment" as potentially arbitrary and prejudging issues, suggesting a continuum rather than a strict separation.
• Parallels with Biological Inheritance: He draws parallels between the unexplained origins of genetic information and the unexplained transfer of karmic factors.
• The Ant Example: He uses the example of an ant's innate instinct to avoid water to illustrate how cause-and-effect might necessitate a pre-birth explanation if present-life experience cannot account for it.
• Empirical Support (Indirect): He points to research by figures like Ian Stevenson, cases of children remembering past lives, near-death experiences, hypnosis, and déjà vu as suggestive, even if not conclusive, evidence.
• Mystics and Sants: He highlights that many individuals who have dedicated themselves to spiritual practices and transcended ordinary limitations (sants, mystics) have spoken in favor of reincarnation, suggesting their experiences might offer a different kind of evidence.
• Limitations of Laboratory Science: He suggests that the resistance to reincarnation might reveal the limitations of laboratory-based science in capturing certain phenomena.

Mr. Triple-eye's Role:

• Metaphilosophical Level: He recognizes that the debate quickly moves to the philosophy of science and epistemology.
• The Impasse: He acknowledges that neither side is likely to convince the other, leaving reincarnation in a "conceptual no-man's land."
• Adṛṣṭa and Nyāya/Yoga: He hints at traditional Indian philosophical concepts like adṛṣṭa (unseen causal efficacy) and relevant sutras from Nyāya and Yoga, particularly the ant's instinct as an example of abhiniveśa (self-preservation instinct) that requires a cause potentially from a past life.
• Probability and Assumption: He notes how Mr. White-robe invokes probability implicitly while denying Mr. Orange-robe the right to do so, highlighting the assumption of universal perception.

Key Themes and Arguments:

• The Nature of Evidence: The central conflict is about what constitutes valid evidence in understanding complex phenomena.
• Limits of Scientific Methodology: The discussion questions whether current scientific paradigms are sufficient to explain all aspects of existence.
• Epistemology: The debate delves into how we know what we know and how we justify our beliefs.
• Mind-Body Problem: The interaction and potential separation of mind and body are touched upon, particularly in relation to inherited traits and consciousness.
• Cultural Influence: The role of culture and suggestion in shaping beliefs about reincarnation is considered.
• The Concept of Karma: While not elaborated in detail in this excerpt, karma is presented as the underlying principle that reincarnation is meant to explain.

In essence, the text sets up a dynamic dialogue that explores the intellectual barriers and philosophical arguments surrounding the acceptance of reincarnation in a modern rationalist framework, highlighting the tension between empirical verification and the potential for broader, albeit less strictly defined, forms of evidence and conceptual understanding. The author concludes that reincarnation cannot be simply dismissed as faith or belief, as it forces fundamental questions about epistemology and individual perception.