More on Past Lives: Real or Imagined?

Discussion in 'Mike Rinders Blog' started by RSS Feed, Nov 18, 2017.

View Users: View Users
  1. RSS Feed

    RSS Feed RSS Feeder Bot

    There is a new post up at the Mike Rinder's Blog

    More on Past Lives: Real or Imagined?

    It’s SaTerraDay! More on Past Lives: Real or Imagined? One of the most vexing questions for me when I was in Scientology was whether past lives were real or imagined. Before I ever went in session for the first time, past lives had been solely a component of fantasy novels. In fact, until I routed […]

    Continue reading...
     
  2. Teanntás

    Teanntás Patron Meritorious

    The Science of Reincarnation

     
  3. Churchill

    Churchill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Whether reincarnation exists or not isn’t the question.
    I don’t know why you’d believe someone who asserted that Science supports reincarnation.
    Oh, wait...
     
  4. Teanntás

    Teanntás Patron Meritorious

    Just like I don't know why you are so close-minded on the subject. À chacun son goût
     
  5. Bill

    Bill Silver Meritorious Patron

    Mike suggests "validating" past lives by using Scientology auditing "tech". That's like validating a brain scan via phrenology. Just silly.

    But seriously, who cares?
     
  6. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    No, I don't think Mike Rinder was saying that. He was saying the opposite.
     
  7. Bill

    Bill Silver Meritorious Patron

    He was discussing how "past lives" uncovered in auditing doesn't validate past lives. That is a perfectly valid point.

    My point is that the failure he points out doesn't disprove past lives either. Auditing itself isn't validated for any purpose.
     
  8. ThetanExterior

    ThetanExterior Gold Meritorious Patron

    Mike Rinder didn't write this article. It was written by his guest contributor Terra Cognita.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  9. Churchill

    Churchill Gold Meritorious Patron

    I’ll tell you why.
    Because, as a former Scientologist I’ve had enough bullshit pseudo-science to last me a hundred lifetimes, and when you present someone asserting the nonsensical notion of science supporting reincarnation, the needle of my bullshit meter hit the pins.

    Look, I have no idea whether or not reincarnation exists, but I do know that anyone using “science” to support the claim that it exists is full of crap.
    You want to believe in it, fine.
    But please don’t pull a Hubbard and buttress your own belief as “science.”
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  10. EZ Linus

    EZ Linus Patron with Honors

    I was always on the fence about the past life thing. I wanted it to be true, but I wanted proof I guess, and still, I didn't know if I would believe it.

    The first time I "ran" something (meaning, asked for an earlier similar incident that was before baby-ism), I was convinced it was BS. I kept telling the auditor that I couldn't remember anything more. He cajoled me to just close my eyes and tell him what I saw, even if it was small--anything I could picture in regard to the question. Anything at all. But it was just pitch black for a long time.

    Eventually, I saw a little clay bowl with a handle. This whole thing took forever, but I finally saw myself gathering water in the little bowl. More and more coaching from the auditor opened up a big scene where I was crouched by a river and the rest of my "tribe" was leaving me behind about a quarter mile. I was scared half to death seeing this. I pounded the cans down on the table and told the auditor it was bullshit. He asked why. I said that I probably just imagined it--that I probably read this in Clan of the Cave Bear or something. He asked me if that very scene was in the book (which it wasn't) so he got me back on the cans and I ran the rest of the incident thinking it was my imagination the entire time.

    I wound up feeling really good after the session: Total wide FN, VGIs, the works.

    After many sessions like these, I came to the conclusion that it didn't matter if these things really happened or not. As long as you felt better after sessions, what did it matter? It of course was never "proof" to me that there were without any doubt past lives. There was always a huge margin of doubt. But as far as spiritual beings, that is what I thought was eternal, but I kind thought, or hoped rather, that before I came into Scientology. But I was just a child and thought like one.
     
  11. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Hey Len - "the needle of my bullshit meter hit the pins." Sounds like a dial wide F/N to me. :yay:

    I don't know if I should weigh in on this or not. I have had a few that were so damn real and many that were dub-in, that I can only bet on the real ones. The two that I have in mind didn't occur in session. One of which was very interesting to me, happened to me prior to scientology or for that matter, any exposure to the idea of past lives at all, when I was in 10th grade. The other resulted in a total shift in viewpoint for a couple days until my normal equilibrium resurfaced.

    Quien sabe?

    Edit - Len - did you watch the video before you dismissed it? I just started it and the speaker, Bob Good that brings up that he, like you, is Jewish, is discussing a data base of some 10k examples of reincarnation. Check out Glen Ford the actor at 16:00 - simply amazing.

    Edit 2 There are a lot of interesting points in the lecture, though the section on quantum states and how it relates to consciousness doesn't quite ring true. The part that was truly freaky is the holographic memories being stored in the body's tissues. At 47:00 he discusses this: In 1988 Claire Silvia received a heart and double lung transplant. After the operation she began to have strange cravings (for her) of beer, green peppers, and chicken nuggets - she began dreaming about beautiful women and having sex with them and someone called Tim. She sought out her donor and found out he was an 18 year old boy who liked those things and was named Tim.

    Mimsey
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  12. Teanntás

    Teanntás Patron Meritorious

    Well, then, stop making Scientology a measure for anything.
     
  13. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

  14. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  15. Teanntás

    Teanntás Patron Meritorious

    A healthly dose of scepticism is always desirable. As well of course of being sceptical of the sceptics.

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...e-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/

    Scientists with Half-closed Minds

    http://rebprotocol.net/June2009/Stevenson Scientists with Half-closed Minds 8pp.pdf
     
  16. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    There's always a skeptic. Some are right and some are fucking idiots. I will check out the above after work, but oh man. Do you know what it says on Jesus's grave stone? "God save me from debunkers"

    Mimsey
     
  17. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    A couple quotes from the second link in the above post. The other link is amazing, really amazing. And it was published in Scientific American to boot. Mimsey

    Scientists with Half-closed Minds
    IAN STEVENSON
    Journal of Scientific Exploration. (2008 ) Vol. 22. No.1. pp. 132-140.
    Originally printed as Stevenson, I. (1958) “Scientists with Half-closed Minds.” Harper's Magazine,
    217,64-71

    http://rebprotocol.net/June2009/Stevenson Scientists with Half-closed Minds 8pp.pdf

    A surprising number are scared to death of new ideas. They have attacked major discoveries
    without even glancing at the evidence. And their distrust of unconventional experiments may now
    be hampering scientific progress.

    A Dutchman living in the East Indies once tried to tell a native of Java that in his country the water
    sometimes becomes so hard you can walk on it. The Javan was immediately convulsed with
    laughter, and the Dutchman' could make no progress with his explanation.

    We find this an amusing story, but it would be even funnier if it did not really refer to us all.
    Ordinarily our reaction to new ideas does not harm us or others. But when we make the discovery
    of new facts and new concepts our business, then incredulity can prove costly. When humans
    become scientists they continue to experience some of the less rational qualities of being human.

    And with this part of them they can get in each other's way, and in the way of progress.
    Pierre Gassendi, for example, made notable contributions to seventeenth century physics. He
    devised the first atomic theory of matter since Democritus, and his works strongly influenced
    Newton. Yet when in 1627 someone reported the fall of a meteorite in Provence, Gassendi
    explained it as due to some unidentified volcanic eruption. This attitude toward meteorites was
    shared by nearly all astronomers and many other leading scientists for the next century and a half.

    Some insisted that the stones had been picked up somewhere and carried by the wind; others
    accused those who claimed to have seen the stones fall of lying. In the late eighteenth century the
    great Antoine Lavoisier, himself a radical innovator in chemistry, rejected accounts of meteorites as
    the products of malobservation. Stones could not fallout of the sky, he declared, because none were
    there. Finally, in April 1803, a shower of small meteorites on L'Aigle, France, persuaded the
    astronomers to change their attitudes.

    Contempt Prior to Examination

    A common and astonishing feature of the opposition to scientific advance is the certainty with
    which it is offered. For the moment, and sometimes for years, the doubter forgets that he could be
    wrong. At the first demonstration of Edison's phonograph before the Paris Academy of Sciences, all
    the scientists present declared that it was impossible to reproduce the human voice by means of a
    metal disc. One man proposed to throttle the demonstrator. "Wretch!" said he. "Do you suppose
    that we are fools to be duped by a ventriloquist?"

    Resistance to the new can reach into the highest places. We owe to Francis Bacon much of the
    foundation of scientific method. He said: "We have set it down as a law to ourselves that we have
    to examine things to the bottom; and not to receive upon credit or reject upon improbabilities, until
    these have passed a due examination." Yet Bacon could not believe that the Earth goes around the
    Sun. Galileo, who could not persuade fellow astronomers to look into his telescope, could not
    himself accept Kepler's evidence that the planets move in ellipses. Nor could he believe that
    witches suffered from mental illness, a view beginning to gain acceptance in his day.
     
  18. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

  19. Bill

    Bill Silver Meritorious Patron

    My opinion, for what it's worth: Science can't prove that past lives are true. Science can't prove that past lives are not true. That's just the way it is. Same with the existence or non existence of God (or gods). By definition, anything "spiritual" is outside the physical universe -- so science, which is the study of the physical universe, has no bearing.

    But what I don't understand is why some people get so upset about it. Person A believes in reincarnation. So? Person B does not believe in reincarnation. So what?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  20. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Good point Programmer Guy BUT! the article I posted was written by IAN STEVENSON who was featured in the Scientific American Article about him and his research into past lives by examining and attempting to disprove childhood past live recall:

    "Stevenson’s main claim to fame was his meticulous studies of children’s memories of previous lives. Here’s one of thousands of cases. In Sri Lanka, a toddler one day overheard her mother mentioning the name of an obscure town (“Kataragama”) that the girl had never been to. The girl informed the mother that she drowned there when her “dumb” (mentally challenged) brother pushed her in the river, that she had a bald father named “Herath” who sold flowers in a market near the Buddhist stupa, that she lived in a house that had a glass window in the roof (a skylight), dogs in the backyard that were tied up and fed meat, that the house was next door to a big Hindu temple, outside of which people smashed coconuts on the ground. Stevenson was able to confirm that there was, indeed, a flower vendor in Kataragama who ran a stall near the Buddhist stupa whose two-year-old daughter had drowned in the river while the girl played with her mentally challenged brother. The man lived in a house where the neighbors threw meat to dogs tied up in their backyard, and it was adjacent to the main temple where devotees practiced a religious ritual of smashing coconuts on the ground. The little girl did get a few items wrong, however. For instance, the dead girl’s dad wasn’t bald (but her grandfather and uncle were) and his name wasn’t “Herath”—that was the name, rather, of the dead girl’s cousin. Otherwise, 27 of the 30 idiosyncratic, verifiable statements she made panned out. The two families never met, nor did they have any friends, coworkers, or other acquaintances in common, so if you take it all at face value, the details couldn’t have been acquired in any obvious way." There is more - much more in the link:

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...e-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/

    Despite the quality of his research - he had his detractors. The author of the article about him further said:

    "I’d be happy to say it’s all complete and utter nonsense—a moldering cesspool of irredeemable, anti-scientific drivel. The trouble is, it’s not entirely apparent to me that it is. So why aren’t scientists taking Stevenson’s data more seriously? The data don’t “fit” our working model of materialistic brain science, surely. But does our refusal to even look at his findings, let alone to debate them, come down to our fear of being wrong? “The wish not to believe,” Stevenson once said, “can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.”

    So why I posted what I did rather than other similar writings, videos etc on past lives, was his impassioned and well reasoned response to the blind refusal to even look at the body of his work, but dismiss it out of hand. In my mind, perhaps as feeble as this 70 yr old can muster, I reasoned this is the first hurdle to overcome - to be willing to look at the evidence that past lives are real.

    I can and have posted many such things here but if no one looks at them because of "I was damaged by Scientology" or "It's impossible, so it can't be true" or "I never recalled a past life" Or "it's all dub in" or a thousand other thought blockers, what is the point? Because the point he makes is this: If you don't look - you will never see the data and you will never know if it is valid or not.

    There is plenty of overwhelming evidence showing the validity of reincarnation - enough that it should be scientific fact and yet? It's pseudo science to too many.

    Thats why I posted what I did. I thought it was on point - very on point.

    Mimsey
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2017

Share This Page