Reincarnation Revisited Rationally

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

Page 2

4
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
causes and effects, that is, because the possible variables cannot be separated and shown to operate individually in distinct ways, irrespective of the investigators involved? Where does the boundary lie, I mean, the boundary between being scientific because an empirical attestation can be provided by replicating the conditions that led to a certain claim and being scientific because the conceptual model erected can account for all or most evidence? Is it justifiable to insist that what the senses of most people grasp is alone true and to deny the possibility that the senses themselves may have varying capabilities depending on the condition of their possessors? Must we set aside the possibility that the dividing line between the senses and the thinking-synthesizing organ (mind, intellect, etc.) may be relative, porous or movable - that, in the case of some individuals, the senses may transcend their usual limitations and become mind or the mind may descend into the senses?
Mr. Triple-eye: You see how the issue of reincarnation leads us right into the heart of philosophy of science or to philosophy of philosophy and forces us to think on the metaphilosophical or metatheoretical plane. Ultimately, it forces us to confront the chicken-and-egg question that may be said to be every thorough-going epistemologist's ngithmare: What comes first, the senses delivering reliable or factual information or the conceptual schemes which give us frames of interpretation for what we experience and which include certain criteria, principles, guidelines etc. about what to trust and what not to trust in the sense data?
Mr. White-robe: Mr. Orange-robe, please don't get excited! These are just too many questions. We handle one question at a time even when all of them come down to the same thing. But since you have asked so many already, let me ask you one. Wouldn't there be the same implications as you are suggesting in the case of every claim of 'unusual' or 'extra-senory' perception? Even if we asked questions such as 'Do ghosts exists? Can some persons read the minds of others?' or 'Can X influence Y from a distance without doing any action that those around can perceive?,' we would ultimately find ourselves questioning the validity of the scientific method or rational thinking. The reincarnation idea indeed keeps some awfully bad company.
Mr. Triple-eye: The ever-smart Mr. White-robe has caught the fundamental nature of the implication of discussing the reincarnation issue rationally or logically. He is rightly pointing out that there are other issues which put him and Mr. Orange
REINCARNATION REVISITED RATIONALLY
robe up against a wall in the same dark alley. It is probably no-coincidence but a logical consequence that the thinkers who accept rebirth usually also accept siddhis those extraordinary capabilities of senses and the body, clairvoyance etc. and the existence of beings who have such subtle bodies that ordinary human beings cannot perceive them. The notions concerned do seem to form a complex.
Mr. Orange-robe: What you are saying then is that science need not investigate assertions such as those of reincarnation. If they are not to be called frivolous, they can at least be declared improper for the scientist because they are untestable they do not leave open the possibility of being disproved.
Mr. White-robe: That's right. I could also give you another reason for why we do what we do in the way we do. Invitations to determine a first cause are inadmissible. We can take the conceptual schemes and the senses as a given and refuse to decide which of the two came first. We can think of their being in contact as having no beginning - in time or in terms of logical priority within the theory. One need not be held more fundamental than the other in the theory.
Mr. Orange-robe: Aha! That means you are arbitrarily limiting investigation. You are offering only a negative defence of what you have already decided, not a refutation of the reincarnation I accept. All you are doing, in fact, is prejudging the issue and giving me evidence of a closed mind. But I will be generous and not accept that. I think you can do better than making a plea for maintaining the status-quo or trusting the scientist, like 'Trust your doctor.' I grant you, though, that you did not express yourself in such nonrational, emotional terms.
Mr. White-robe: That's how things may seem to you, but look at what you are doing to the cause you are championing. In pushing for reincamation, you are destroying the chances of being able to determine anything as scientific or valid. If you are wise, you will not lift the lid on a can of worms. If you are smart, you will not leave open the doors of cages holding wild animals. You can push the issue of reincarnation only at the expense of not receiving a methodologically sound answer. Forcing it will end up in self-defeat, since you will then have no means left to settle it.
Mr. Triple-eye Neither gentleman is likely to be able to convince the other of the validity of his position. The debate has moved to the metatheoretical level at which they are questioning each other's very approach to settling the issue. In that sense, reincarnation stands neither proved nor disproved. The time to