What’s the point of it all?
Recently, a private correspondent asked me the following question:
You’ve taken a lot of time explaining Thelema. However, there is something that’s been gnawing at me for some time now, and is possibly the most fundamental of all for this subject… “What’s the point of it all?”
There’s a part of me that is wondering why I should struggle to practice, to be aware of anything beyond my normal consciousness, particularly if all this work doesn’t survive my death in some way; or does it? Is there such a thing as “reincarnation?” If so, what survives? If not, then do I and all my efforts in Thelema cease to exist at death? It would all be better experienced by me if I knew that somehow all the work isn’t limited to a small span of time.
As the correspondent rightly points out, this is indeed a fundamental question, and one worth looking at closely. Inseparable from this question is the idea that impermanence is a demotivating factor: “why should I struggle to practice… if all this work doesn’t survive my death in some way?” Therefore we need to begin by looking at the question of death.
Firstly, the easy answer. “Is there such a thing as ‘reincarnation’?” No, there isn’t. When you’re dead, you’re dead, and nothing of the individual survives. Individuality is a temporal and temporary phenomenon. Naturally, there are some who would object to such a strident statement – “how can you know?” – to whom I would reply, “show me the evidence.” Even those who do believe – and “believe” is the appropriate word, here – in reincarnation never seem to speak of a continuity of individuality. They may claim to have memories of “past lives”, and they may claim to have discovered events in “past lives” which can shed some light on things they experience in this life, but nobody makes the suggestion that the consciousness of individuality simply continues from one life to the next, that a new-born baby suddenly wakes up with fifty years of intact memories, wondering how he suddenly disappeared from the scene of the car accident and woke up between some strange woman’s legs. Even if there were some “connection” between lives, therefore, the theory of reincarnation does not get one past the question of individual impermanence. We can argue that our current work may “help out” one of our reincarnations down the line, but since people today are still learning from the works of Homer, for instance, we can argue the “future life benefit” point perfectly well without having to resort to reincarnation in order to do it.
So much for reincarnation, therefore, but a much more interesting issue is the “demotivating” quality of impermanence in the first place. Why should this be so?
Let’s turn this around and consider for a moment what it would be like to have eternal individual consciousness. A situation where you have the full knowledge that you are you, and that you are going to be you – not just for a long time, but for ever – is one of the most loathsome ideas I can personally come up with. Christopher Hitchens has long decried the Christian view of heaven – an eternity of enforced totalitarian praising and giving thanks to “God” – as a “celestial North Korea”, but with this critical difference: “at least you can fucking die and get out of North Korea.”
Eternal individual consciousness would be a prison from which there can be no escape. Mankind should not view its mortality as its curse, therefore, but as its gift. The Book of the Law states in AL I, 58, that “I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty, not faith, while in life, upon death; peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy.” Whatever we need to endure here on earth, we have one absolute and fundamental certainty: at the end of it, we will become free. Christianity alternatively gives empty promises of a blissful afterlife and terrorises its adherents with threats of an afterlife full of torment, but Nuit offers us certainty, not faith, by simply offering death.
Thelema removes all the fear and dread from death: “Thrill with the joy of life & death! Ah! thy death shall be lovely: whoso seeth it shall be glad. Thy death shall be the seal of the promise of our agelong love. Come! lift up thine heart & rejoice! We are one; we are none.” (AL II, 66) Throughout our lives we seek love – union – to enrich our beings, and what better “crown of all” could there be but to achieve complete union, and total dissolution of the self in the universe?
Traditional notions of death are small-minded and mealy-mouthed. There is not one atom of our beings that has not been presented to us by the universe, yet we insist on labeling it “ours”, and protesting when the same thing that gave us life in the first place asks for it back, as a child protests when asked to hand back a borrowed toy.
It is useful to turn the question around, and instead of asking about the point of striving for development when we must ultimately die, asking instead what would be the point of striving for development if we did not die? Given all of eternity, one could be expected to eventually achieve the highest attainments possible simply by sitting in front of the television and briefly thinking a couple of times a year. There would be no point even eating, since if we died of starvation, we would do so safe in the knowledge that we’d pretty soon be reincarnated into a new body safe and sound again. When anything got too uncomfortable to handle, we could just lay down, die, and be reincarnated into a wholly new situation. And if, as a result the “karmic price” of our lackadaisical and idle ways, that new situation was not to our liking? We could simply do it again. The very idea of avoiding “wretched incarnations” would cease to be a motivating factor, since we could avoid facing them by simply lying down and refusing to act.
No, it is only the fact that we must ultimately die that gives any action any meaning. We have a limited amount of life, which means that we have a limited number of actions we can take, and that every action is therefore an expression of our being, an expression of what we are, a statement of what we consider ourselves to be. We all know the story of mighty Achilles, but what of those in the Greek armies who are not named in The Iliad? What of the brave soldiers of Gododdin who fell unnamed at the Battle of Catraeth? What of all those who fell in battles unknown to modern man, their names and deeds forgotten? Are they made any less glorious by their lack of renown? If anything, they are made more glorious because of it, as their actions are not contaminated by the need for recognition: “For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.” (AL I, 44)
Neither need we restrict ourselves to “heroes”. The humble trash collector or postman, carrying out his task day after day. The photographer of wild flowers, capturing brief and fleeting moments of nature. The man constructing a model railway in his attic, building his representation in the finest detail. These people are expressing their very beings in their actions, choosing the statement of their own existence, acquiescing in their role as a minute, and temporary, but necessary part of the universe. They make their mark on time and space regardless of whether anyone else ever gets to hear about it. They are given some time, and decide “this is how I will spend it, this is what I will be”, in exactly the same way as the greatest and most famous “hero” does. “Every man and every woman is a star”, every action taken is unto the glory of Nuit, and the fact that each moment, once passed, is gone forever, and that each action necessarily excludes any of the others that could have been performed, is the basis of that glory, and goes to its very heart.
Hillary famously responded as to his motivations for climbing Everest with “because it’s there”. Why struggle to practice? Because you can. As we read in The Book of the Law, “Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve.” (AL II, 58) We need not be a slave to death, bound to notions of “purpose” or “recognition” in order to motivate our actions. We act because we are Kings, and Kings need no purpose other than their royalty. True liberty is not merely freedom to fulfill our purpose, but freedom from purpose. When you attain to complete freedom, what then will you do? Without constraint to guide your actions, what will drive you? True liberty is the freedom to be what you are, for no other reason than because that is what you are. The attachment to permanence and purpose is merely another shackle to be shed in the acceptance of the nature of one’s being and in the extension of that. We need no reason to act other than our own nature. To demand that one should work in the interests of permanence is conceptually no different that to demand that one should work “for the love of Jesus”, or for “the glory of the state.”
We are given a brief span of life in this universe, and we should rejoice both in the living of it, and in the relinquishing of it once that span is over. Let us leave the bondage of purpose, the need for recognition and permanence, and the fear of death to the slaves who wallow in such muck. Let those who cling hysterically to the shells of their individuality as they are dragged kicking and screaming away from it do so: “There is death for the dogs.” (AL II, 45) The relinquishing of life should be done as nobly and joyously as the living of it, leaving thoughts of what remains to those who will come after.
“Aye! feast! rejoice! there is no dread hereafter. There is the dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu.” (AL II, 44)
17 Comments on “What’s the point of it all?”
On the one hand, you’re saying that we live this life, and then it’s done. But on the other hand, you mention things such as: “upon death; peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy” and “There is the dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu.”
Now if there is nothing beyond death, then how can there be “peace,” “rest,” or “ecstasy” if there be nothing that remains capable of experiencing such things?
Now if there is nothing beyond death, then how can there be “peace,” “rest,” or “ecstasy” if there be nothing that remains capable of experiencing such things?
Because such peace is only attainable in the absence of such things. If there was something left to experience it, it wouldn’t be peaceful or restful for very long. Existing consciously forever with nothing to experience or to do doesn’t sound very restful to me.
The “peace” and “rest” comes precisely from not having to be an individual any more; it comes from the shedding of consciousness and the ending of experience. If death is peace and rest from consciousness, it’s going to be neither peaceful nor restful if you have to hang around to consciously experience it.
I’m following what you’re saying on this point. It would be a terrible burden to exist forever. You stated: “Given all of eternity, one could be expected to eventually achieve the highest attainments possible simply by sitting in front of the television and briefly thinking a couple of times a year.” But it seems to me that this statement is based on an idea that their is a finite amount of “attaining” to be had. Some viewpoints consider “attainment” or “growth” or “evolution” or whatever we choose to call it as a never-ending and infinite process.
Additionally, how would you reconcile this viewpoint with AL 1:26: “And the sign shall be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence?” Furthermore, how should I view Crowley’s contrary viewpoint in Chapter XLVII of MWT, for example, where he uses the phrase “continuity of existence” in discussing why he “believes” in reincarnation of “something?”
Now I also see a great deal of value in your “live and die and your done” view, it’s still difficult to accept because it is contrary to the views of others, not the least of which was Crowley.
But it seems to me that this statement is based on an idea that their is a finite amount of “attaining” to be had.
It does only seem that way, though. With an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of attainment can and will be had. What’s more, the law of diminishing marginal returns suggests that each successive attainment will become increasingly less significant until it’s completely unnoticeable.
Additionally, how would you reconcile this viewpoint with AL 1:26: “And the sign shall be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence?”
You’ll have to explain where you think the contradiction is for me to answer that. It says “continuity of existence”, not “continuity of individual consciousness”, and one can be “[conscious] of the continuity of existence” for a very short period of time, this doesn’t imply one is eternally conscious of it.
Furthermore, how should I view Crowley’s contrary viewpoint in Chapter XLVII of MWT, for example, where he uses the phrase “continuity of existence” in discussing why he “believes” in reincarnation of “something?”
Yeah, but you also have this from Magick in Theory and Practice:
Now, that doesn’t exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of the truth of the theory of reincarnation to me.
And then there’s this from Magick Without Tears:
Some people claim that Crowley actually did fully believe in the reality of reincarnation. They are demonstrably mistaken, as you can see. The letter you quote finishes:
Now I also see a great deal of value in your “live and die and your done” view, it’s still difficult to accept because it is contrary to the views of others, not the least of which was Crowley.
Well, maybe you have some more to chew on about what Crowley thought about the whole matter, but I don’t see why something being “contrary to the views of others” should be any barrier to accepting it. If you refused to accept, for instance, the idea that gravity makes objects fall away from the surface of the earth instead of towards it, then the fact that many people would disagree with you may be a good reason for that, because it’s the kind of thing that may be reasonably expected to be independently verifiable. However, the fact that a large number of people hold fixed views on a subject that they cannot possibly have obtained from any kind of sensible means should be no barrier at all to you accepting a contrary position.
I certainly do have more to chew on now. It’s more than likely that I simply don’t want to accept a view contrary to my own fixed views because that might somehow upset my mind. How’s that for a little dose of self honesty.
But about the “attainment” point you made, how can you say: “With an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of attainment can and will be had?” I may be a bit rusty on the concept of “infinity,” but doesn’t the term imply “without end?”
As for “diminishing returns” in this context, if applicable, would it not be evident in the history of mankind to date? That reminds me of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when many scientists were sure that they had discovered all that could be discovered.
But about the “attainment” point you made, how can you say: “With an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of attainment can and will be had?” I may be a bit rusty on the concept of “infinity,” but doesn’t the term imply “without end?”
Funny things happen when you start dealing with infinities. It doesn’t matter how infinite an amount of attainment there is to be had, if you have an infinite amount of time, you have time to attain it all. Any additional bit of attainment you care to think of, there’s still some more time to achieve it in.
As for “diminishing returns” in this context, if applicable, would it not be evident in the history of mankind to date? That reminds me of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when many scientists were sure that they had discovered all that could be discovered.
“Attainment” is something that happens to individuals, not to mankind. It also cannot be equated with “more knowledge”.
But even then, the analogy continues to apply. Recent discoveries relating to computing and the physical sciences, for instance, have a far, far smaller effect on mankind than, for instance, the discovery of how to make fire, the invention of the wheel, the development of agriculture and domestic husbandry, and so on. Indeed, one can argue that it’s the surfeit of barely-useful knowledge freely available that is partly responsible for the need to attain in the first place, since it enables a far greater degree of distraction.
93,
Interesting piece.
I think one point to attack straight on is the notion of teleology or purpose in ourselves, and the world. For all practical purposes, we say ‘attainment’ is the ‘goal’ or end but then we see ‘the end is the beginning,’ that there is no ultimate purpose for ‘is there not joy ineffable in this aimless winging?’
Also, ‘meaning’ and expression can only come about within certain bounds. The infinite and impersonal defies meaning and expression. All art works within arbitrary restrictions: the dimensions of the canvas, the materials ofthe paint, the bristles on the brush… the notes on the scale… etc. It is within these bounds that change, permutation, juxtaposition, etc. become meaning. And in this sense, man’s life is a meaningful art piece insofar as there are boundaries: ‘birth’ and ‘death’. Death is the seal on the story.
IAO131
You’ll have to explain where you think the contradiction is for me to answer that. It says “continuity of existence”, not “continuity of individual consciousness”, and one can be “[conscious] of the continuity of existence” for a very short period of time, this doesn’t imply one is eternally conscious of it.
Do you relate the perception of Nuit’s continuity of existence to the vision of the HGA?
Also, just out of interest, is there some rational reason for why it can only be perceived for a short period of time?
Do you relate the perception of Nuit’s continuity of existence to the vision of the HGA?
Well, I don’t really like to talk in terms of “vision of the HGA”; I personally never get “visions” of angels.
I would relate “perception of Nuit’s continuity of existence” more to 8=3 than the HGA, since it’s that continuity that destroys the illusion of individuality. In the “beatific vision” things may appear connected, but still distinct, still individual. As well as the vision of sorrow, the vision of wonder – “in which the whole Mystery of the Universe is constantly understood and admired for its Ingenium and Wisdom” – is attributed to Binah, linking both the “actual” absence of individuality with the nevertheless undeniable perception of it.
Also, just out of interest, is there some rational reason for why it can only be perceived for a short period of time?
I was unclear. When I said “one can be conscious … for a very short period of time”, I meant that it’s possible for one to be conscious for a very short period of time, in order to rebut the idea that “consciousness of the continuity of existence” must necessarily mean “continuous consciousness of the continuity of existence”, and therefore eternal individual consciousness. I wasn’t implying that such consciousness must necessarily be only for a very short period of time, just that it is capable of being so.
As well as the vision of sorrow, the vision of wonder – “in which the whole Mystery of the Universe is constantly understood and admired for its Ingenium and Wisdom” – is attributed to Binah, linking both the “actual” absence of individuality with the nevertheless undeniable perception of it.
Am I right in saying that the vision of sorrow and the vision of wonder are parts of the same experience? Is one linked to Nuit and one linked to Hadit?
Am I right in saying that the vision of sorrow and the vision of wonder are parts of the same experience?
It’s not as much a question of being “right” as much as it is a question of how you are defining “experience” in this context. They’re both part of the experience of “being alive”, for instance.
They are two different visions, however, but they are linked in the sense that the vision of wonder, amongst others, can transcend the vision of sorrow. The vision of sorrow implies dissatisfaction, and arises from the fact that the illusory nature of the self means that the self can never be satisfied. The vision of wonder, being universal in nature, takes the seat of consciousness out of the self, obviating the need for such satisfaction. The “vision of the universal joke” does something similar in a slightly different way.
Is one linked to Nuit and one linked to Hadit?
Not as far as I’m concerned. I can’t see any particularly sensible way of making such a link.
Nice essay. “What’s the point of it all” if I’m going to fucking die anyway? This is a question I think any aspirant has faced in his career at one time or another. I generally agree with your responses here. I did want to make a few comments though, hopefully they are relevant. This will be the first time I have ever responded to a blog, so bare with me if the etiquette is wrong.
“Nuit offers us certainty, not faith, by simply offering death”. Right, no dread hereafter where bad people go, or worse a place called heaven, where we all have our favorite pinball machine to play for eternity with unlimited credits. No, just death. Just “the Dissolution in the Kiss of Our Lady Nuit”. As you said, “it is only the fact that we must ultimately die that gives any action meaning”.
As for reincarnation, I’m not quite so quick to write it off completely, though I seriously doubt it happens. And I’m sure it could easily be argued that for all intensive purposes, since you cannot prove it, reincarnation does not exist, and I would have to agree. Personal memories of previous incarnations are generally only helpful to the person involved and prove nothing. In regard to the belief in reincarnation, it is my view that, though difficult, the scientific method should be applied like to everything else, when possible. This would naturally be quite difficult in the case of reincarnation, but perhaps events of a previous life could be verified through historical record or possibly by Archeological evidence, etc. Until this happens, through honest research, the theory of reincarnation will remain just that, a theory. Anyway, it seems pretty clear to me that Aleister Crowley “believed” in, at least a form of, reincarnation, though he makes it clear that this is mere speculation on his part. I base this view on his writings. A good example of his belief in this matter is written in Liber Aleph, Chapters 192-193 where he lays it out clearly, though with the caveat of, “and this is my Opinion, of which I say not: this is the Truth”. However, chapter 194 of the same work seems to resonate more with what you are saying here, in regards to what is said in Liber AL.
Also, I’m in complete agreement with what you wrote in the last two paragraphs of the essay. This is touched on in MWT chapter LXIII, but also I think a good example of the attitude to adopt (which is included in the MWT chapter) is that which is etched in Liber 333 chapter 34, “live thou and die! Thus shall His laughter be thrilled through with Ecstasy”.
or worse a place called heaven, where we all have our favorite pinball machine to play for eternity with unlimited credits.
Heh, precisely.
In regard to the belief in reincarnation, it is my view that, though difficult, the scientific method should be applied like to everything else, when possible. This would naturally be quite difficult in the case of reincarnation, but perhaps events of a previous life could be verified through historical record or possibly by Archeological evidence, etc. Until this happens, through honest research, the theory of reincarnation will remain just that, a theory.
Strictly speaking, the scientific method requires us to be agnostic of everything, and to make only tentative assumptions for convenience based on evidence which may be contradicted at any moment and reasoning which may be demonstrated to be incorrect at any moment.
However, there is agnosticism and there is agnosticism. I’m agnostic with regards to reincarnation in the same way as I’m agnostic with regards to the idea that there is a colony of invisible goblins living at the bottom of my garden, or in the same way as I’m agnostic with regards to the idea that a logically impossible God created the world in six days a few thousand years ago and then planted dinosaur bones in the ground to make it look a lot older, or in the same way as I’m agnostic with regards to Russell’s famous teapot. In other words, the weight of evidence against it, whilst not absolute, is so overwhelmingly great as to justify saying, for all practical purposes, “it’s not true”. I would think pretty much any scientist who did not have a vested interest in holding such a belief would probably take the same view.
Anyway, it seems pretty clear to me that Aleister Crowley “believed” in, at least a form of, reincarnation, though he makes it clear that this is mere speculation on his part. I base this view on his writings.
Another comment to this entry gives some more examples of his writings on this subject. Whilst I’d certainly agree that it’s clear that he said he believed in it on at least one occasion, I think the rest of his writings make it clear that he didn’t mean what many people suppose him to have meant by that. I think the weight of the evidence shows that when he said he “believed it”, he meant he “acted like he believed it, for convenience, and because the practical disadvantages of holding this particular incorrect belief are relatively small.” The very fact that he said “I say not: this is the Truth” as you quote demonstrates that he didn’t “believe it” in the normal sense that someone believes something to be true. He came straight out and said that he has no idea whether or not it’s true. That’s not a real belief, in my book.
If there was practical sense in personal resurrection then I think it should some kind of a mechanism which allows some really deep memories imprinted on a physical substrate other than the neurons in the brain. A Buddhist, occultist and other person of this type could in basically claim something like that the memories of their past lives are so well imprinted in their current mind because they used to meditate on these symbols much more heavily and with a lot deeper concentration than normal people meditate on any symbol. However, I don’t see much proof that this kind of thing takes place.
I basically like Metteya’s essay Training of the Mind, but I’ve been wondering about this claim in it:
“Often, indeed, it happens that one, perchance the last of
all those ancient records, is given now so clearly and legibly that a child can read some part of what was written; and so we have those strange instances of sporadic, uninherited genius that are the puzzle and the despair of Western Psychologists?
*snip*
By the time he was five years old that baby, scarce able to speak correctly, could write in the Chinese character perfectly — that wonderful and complex script that takes an ordinary man ten to fifteen years to master — and this baby of five wrote it perfectly. This child’s power was exhibited all over the country, and before
the Emperor of Japan; and the question that arises is, how did all these children get their powers? Surely, because {52} for them the last writing on the book of their minds was yet clear and legible; because in their last birth that one particular set of Sankh ras was so powerful that its record could still be read.”
Surely most modern psychologist would keenly “explain” this by saying that those kids were autistic or whatnot. This kind of proof for resurrection would be much more convincing if, say, a kid of an European peasant suddenly wrote with Chinese letters, thoughin the modern world even then the sceptics would quickly argue that the kid probably saw the letters in some TV show first.
Surely most modern psychologist would keenly “explain” this by saying that those kids were autistic or whatnot. This kind of proof for resurrection would be much more convincing if, say, a kid of an European peasant suddenly wrote with Chinese letters, thoughin the modern world even then the sceptics would quickly argue that the kid probably saw the letters in some TV show first.
I think a more general problem is that it’s always going to be easy to find isolated cases that seem to defy logical explanation, and there will always be people who try to use them as “proof” for something or another. I don’t think any isolated incidents are ever going to provide enough proof.
If it were a regular and documented occurrence for European peasants to start talking and writings in all manner of strange tongues before they’ve even mastered their own, then that would something better approaching good evidence.
Even then, it’s only really evidence that something odd is going on. To actually claim that such a phenomenon was due to reincarnation, some kind of causal mechanism would need to be determined as you suggest. Even regular, commonplace documented occurrences of “remembering past lives” wouldn’t necessarily be good evidence for reincarnation if a reasonable alternative explanation could be advanced, such as somehow just “picking up” the floating memories of the dead without actually being personal incarnations of them. In fact, given the number of people who claim to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra, this may be a far better explanation for the so-called “evidence” we currently have right now.
It is and always will be the case that “hey! wow! now isn’t that strange?!?” just is not a reliable way of testing hypotheses, no matter how odd things look.
Cool discussion, and overall site by the way, you have a really interesting take on a lot of material i’m interested in.
Now, to the topic at hand: reincarnation.
I personally like the theory, but thats irrelevant to the matter at hand.
There have been some attempts to investigate these kinds of occurences scientifically (no hypnosis) and one article can be found at the following link: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v17n3a6.php
Google the name Ian Stephenson, i believe that he has a book, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, but i have only read a few of his articles, so i dont claim to be expert on any of this.
For my money, i think that “you” come back to the extent that you unite yorself with the part of the universe that gave you birth, and no further. So its not a common occurence, but it happens.
Cool discussion, and overall site by the way, you have a really interesting take on a lot of material i’m interested in.
Well, someone has to provide an alternative to the usual occultist tripe, so I guess it might as well be me.
There have been some attempts to investigate these kinds of occurences scientifically (no hypnosis) and one article can be found at the following link:
See, now this is what I alluded to in another post on here, maybe it was Go-Go-Godel. The linked article in particular is nothing even vaguely approaching an “investigation”, just a collection of anecdotes. To be fair, the author does present it as merely “brief summaries of three unsolved Dutch cases”, but then he makes this comment:
The fact is that they don’t, at all. Even if we accept some kind of paranormal cause for these cases, they just don’t. All these cases could ever – ever – demonstrate is some form of shared memory, although the introduction also refers to some unspecified cases of “birthmarks” too.
Now, when I said this was not an “investigation”, it’s an important point, because the key part missing is an attempt to investigate what the causal mechanism could be. In other words, there is no theory behind this type of “study”, and it turns out to be a critical flaw, because it is only possible to assert that the evidence “appear[s] to corroborate a reincarnation hypothesis” if one completely ignores all the other possible hypotheses that could explain the evidence equally well, or better.
This guy has broken the good old “law of the excluded middle” by assuming that it’s either reincarnation, or fabrication, conscious or otherwise – which conveniently for the believer ups the odds of the reincarnation hypothesis being true – but there are plenty of other paranormal explanations, let alone sensible ones, which could account for this type of phenomena.
For instance, we could imagine the memories of the dead guy simply “passing through” a foetus and leaving a trace as those memories head off wherever they are going. In this way, the child may “inherit” these memories without actually being a reincarnation of the dead guy. Or, there could be some gigantic “cosmic store” of memories existing somewhere which can occasionally be tapped into, again enabling memories to be shared without any souls being reincarnated. Third, we could all be living in a huge computer program and these occurrences represent some kind of short-circuit.
In the evidence itself there is nothing to suggest that reincarnation is a better explanation than these alternatives, and indeed all three of them are simpler than the reincarnation theory. The researcher is simply beginning with a reincarnation bias (i.e. reincarnation or delusion) which renders his entire work useless due to the failure to actually investigate a potential causal mechanism.
Moreover, he displays a blinding lack of consideration for psychology. He makes a big point of saying that the individuals have no motive for “promoting” a theory of reincarnation, but nowhere takes into account that people have a well-marked tendency to advance views simply because they believe in them, because they want them to be true. Whether or not they stand to gain anything by promoting such a view to the external world is irrelevant; they simply – consciously or not – want their beliefs to be validated. In at least one case the parents are stated to have a pre-existing belief in reincarnation so this “researcher” should have been especially on his guard about this.
The unfortunate fact for the believer is that this type of “study” is a long, long way from being scientific, and is systematically biased in favour of a belief in reincarnation, even if speculating on the back of a few isolated strange occurrences was good science, which it isn’t.