Because they have a university degree and a few plaques on their wall, most of these science guys think it gives them the key to knowing everything there is to know about the workings of the universe.

But the truth is, modern scientists are still baffled more than ever when it comes to explaining the phenomenon of consciousness.

For the most part, the standard explanation is the one of Positivism. This states that since the only verifiable objects we can see are those of the world of matter, then matter is the only thing worthy of study. They sometimes haphazardly conclude that only matter exists, and something such as consciousness, must therefore, also soley function with material elements alone.

Many leading proponents of artificial intelligence, such as Marvin Minksy, believe that humans are, in fact, machines, whose functioning, although complex, is fully explainable by current physics.

See here:

In this way, the human being is reduced down to an evolved biological program!

According to this absurd theory, thinking, feeling, and willing become merely the exibition of a complex array of chemical reactions within the brain.

Other than this commonly accepted understanding, it’s a fact, that few scientist would be willing to journey outside this realm of thought; for they might perhaps fear treading into the thin ice of *gasp* religious belief!

But that is not always the case….

There are a few avant-garde scientists, such as Roger Penrose, who are willing to go against the grain. Although a professed atheist, he is actually addressing many of the gargantuan gaps that are within these current scientific theories.

Roger Penrose is a Mathematician, who has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.

He argues that the known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. He also concludes that there is a part of our conscious thinking that could never be simulated by a computer.

The host (in this video below) after hearing this asks, “Then what is that something else that might come into play?”

See here:

What a good question! What is that something else? Could it be, science forbid, a soul?

No, the existence of a soul cannot be scientific discovery (they would assume).

But, what if that is the whole point here! Could it be that maybe, science is light-years behind the advanced knowledge of the Vedas, which fully disclosed a complete scientific understanding of the transcendental living soul that dwells within the machine of the material body, over 5,000 years ago?

Perhaps, it’s science that has finally started to evolve enough to actually begin a greater frontier than had ever been known to the Positivist universe before.

Maybe, if some scientists were not so quick to reject things out of superstition, they could study Vedic knowledge scientifically on this basis and come to solve some of these daunting mysteries of consciousness.

The untold irony is that these deeper intricacies of life had already been discussed by Vedic transcendentalists since the dawn of civilized time.

While modern science was in its diapers, busily playing with the childish toys of modern technological advancement, the Vedas had already been expounding and singing the scientific truths of a non-material soul, which offers a very sound and logical explanation of the phenomenon of consciousness.

“Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.”

- Bhagavad Gita As It Is 2.29“

For more than a century, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has been the theoretical framework – the paradigm – in mainstream biology and related life-sciences.

Nevertheless, great advances in biochemistry over the past decades have created an Intelligent Design opposition which maintains that the theory of evolution is beset with anomalies.

In Rethinking Darwin, Danish science writer Leif A. Jensen, in collaboration with leading Intelligent Design proponents such as Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. William Dembski, and Dr. Jonathan Wells, points out flaws in the Darwinian paradigm and examines the case for intelligent design. The argument for design is next expanded with further evidence from archeology, cosmology, and studies of consciousness. Finally, based on the irreducible nature of consciousness, the book suggests an alternative paradigm drawn from the Vedic texts of ancient India.

Softbound, 256 pages, 5″ x 7.5″.
Price: $11.95
Item Code: NEBH725
By Leif A. Jensen
Company: BBT International

AVAILABLE FROM:

• KRISHNA.com

On January 24, 1936, Albert Einstein wrote the following letter to a sixth-grade student, Phyllis Wright, in response to her question as to whether scientists pray, and if so, what they pray for.

Dear Phyllis,

I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer.

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people.

For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e., by a wish addressed to a supernatural being.

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of the laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith.

All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.

But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naïve.

I hope this answers your question.

Best wishes,

Albert Einstein

MY CRITIQUE OF THE LETTER

The above letter by Albert Einstein gives a simplistic explanation of scientific research. He explains that research or science is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by the laws of nature.

A law implies systematic function over time. A systematic function indicates a system, which also indicates structure. A structure indicates hierarchy of order or cross-functioning relationships, and these relationships operate on intelligence. Therefore, by Einstein’s own words, he implies that there is a higher intelligence governing the systematic laws of nature. The scientists, however, are only interested in understanding how the laws function and are not concerned with the system behind the laws.

To give a crude analogy, it is like when someone is interested in the laws concerning driving, but not so much interested with the department of transportation that creates and implements those laws. In one sense, one does not need to know the department to understand the law. However, such an understanding is incomplete.

Unless one comprehends the functions and systems of a body of governance, it is very difficult to not only manipulate the laws completely and perfectly, but to interpret them correctly as well. In other words, incomplete and imperfect understanding of a law can lead to a system’s malfunction (disorder), thereby defeating the original purpose of the law, viz. to create order.

Einstein in his letter admits to the imperfect and fragmentary knowledge base of the scientific community. What he does not say is that this imperfect learning can do more harm than good. We are now beginning to realize the dangers of imperfect knowledge. For example, the issues of global warming, environmental pollution, species extinction, cross pollination of diseases between humans and animals, the gradual degradation of social and cultural ethos that debase human society to mere animal propensities, et cetera, all indicate disorders or system malfunctions. The very laws that were created to help humankind are actually causing harm. Einstein, revealing his true intellectual genius, admits the limitations and also writes that one who is serious about scientific knowledge is convinced of a Great Spirit above the laws of nature. He is implying that there is an intelligence beyond our own. Accepting this is the beginning of spiritual studies. The saints of the Vedic school begin where Einstein ends – that the intelligence of the universe is beyond our own and that our understanding is negligible in comparison. Therefore, to actually be religious and scientific means to make a paradigm shift by scientifically studying and admitting our own infinitesimal position in relation to the infinite, and religiously approaching the Great Spirit (the Infinite) in a mood of humility and devotion. In that way the system will be revealed, including its laws and our relationship with those laws, and it will bestow knowledge that is perfect and complete.

Michael Cremo, with some 50 million year old artifacts from the California gold mines.

Some years ago, Doug Kenyon, editor of Atlantis Rising, asked me to write a column for his magazine. I agreed, and it was a good decision. I named the column “The Forbidden Archeologist.” In it, I have commented on many topics of interest to me.

The first is archeological evidence for extreme human antiquity. According to mainstream conventional science, human beings like us first came into existence between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, having evolved from more primitive apelike ancestors. But the ancient Sanskrit writings of India and the texts of other cultures tell us that humans have existed on earth for far longer periods of time. There is some archeological evidence for this. I extensively documented this kind of evidence in my book Forbidden Archeology. That book was published in 1993. So this column has given me a chance to write about new evidence for extreme human antiquity that has come to my attention since then.

From time to time, scientists who support the current evolutionary theories of human origins announce discoveries of bones of apemen that appear to confirm their ideas. These discoveries are promoted in the mainstream media as “our ancestors” and as “missing links” in the imagined evolutionary chain. This column has given me the chance to respond to such propaganda by showing how humans like us existed at the same time as the proposed apelike ancestors.

Another of my interests is the history of Vedic culture in India. By Vedic culture, I mean the culture of Indo-European-speaking people. Sanskrit, the language of the Vedic literature, is Indo-European. According to conventional history, Vedic culture came into India from the outside, from the northwest, as part of a migration of Indo-European speaking people into India about 3,500 years ago. But in the Vedic literature itself there is no evidence for any such migration. The Vedic literature indicates that Vedic culture has always been present within India. So in this column, I sometimes discuss evidence that shows the Vedic culture has been in India for longer than 3,500 years.

In all the areas of my interest, the topic of knowledge filtration comes up. I introduced the idea of the knowledge filter in my book Forbidden Archeology. It represents the influence of dominant theories on the treat of evidence in archeology and other sciences. Evidence that supports dominant theories passes through this knowledge filter very easily. But evidence that contradicts dominant theories does not pass through this filter, and thus this evidence is not very well known. To most people, even professional scientists, this evidence simply does not exist. Some of the agents responsible for this knowledge filtration are the editors and reviewers of scientific journals. Between the readers and the writers stand the editors and “peer reviewers.”

Even mainstream scientists are beginning to question the effectiveness of the peer review process. The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom reported on research in this topic in an article titled “Trial by Peers Comes UpShort” by Sophie Petit-Zeman (Guardian.com.uk, 16 January 2003). Dr. Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration Methods Group said, “”Peer-review is generally assumed to be an important part of the scientific process and is used to assess and improve the quality of submissions to journals as well as being an important part of the process of deciding what research is funded. But we have found little empirical evidence to support the use of peer-review as a mechanism to ensure the quality of research reporting, and there’s even more depressing evidence about its value in deciding what should be funded.”

Editors of mainstream scientific journals and their peer reviewers often function as gatekeepers for orthodoxy. Thomas E. Lee was a Canadian archeologist. He discovered stone tools on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron, in the province of Ontario in Canada. The objects were found in a formation over 70,000 years old. According to standard theories, there were no human beings in North American before 25,000 years ago, maximum. Therefore Lee found it impossible to get mainstream science journals to publish his findings. In the Anthropological Journal of Canada (1977, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 2), Lee wrote: “A nervous or timid editor, his senses acutely attuned to the smell of danger to position, security, reputation, or censure, submits copies of a suspect paper to one or two advisors whom he considers well placed to pass safe judgment. They read it, or perhaps only skim through it looking for a few choice phrases that can be challenged or used against the author (their opinions were formed long in advance on the basis of what came over the grapevine or was picked up in the smoke-filled back rooms at conferences—little bits of gossip that would tell them that the writer was far-out, a maverick, or an untouchable). Then with a few cutting, unchallenged, and entirely unsupported statements, they ‘kill’ the paper.”

In 1988, George Miller, curator of the Imperial Valley College Museum in El Centro, California reported that some mammoth bones bearing human cut marks were found in California’s Anza Borrego Desert. Scientists from the United States Geological Survey dated the bones using the uranium isotope method. They got an age of at least 300,000 years. Tests using other methods (paleomagnetic dating and dating of volcanic ash found at the site) indicated an age of perhaps as much as 750,000 years. The original reports came in a newspaper article (D. Graham, “Scientist Sees an Early Mark of Man,” San Diego Union, 31 October 1988), but Miller planned on publishing a scientific paper about the discoveries. While I was researching another case for my book Forbidden Archeology, I visited the San Diego Natural History Museum. There I met paleontologist Thomas Deméré. I mentioned Miller’s discovery to him. I also mentioned that Miller was planning on publishing a paper on it. Deméré said he and his colleagues had heard about that. He told me the paper would never pass peer review. Minds were made up in advance, before the paper was even read.

In the 1970s, geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre and some of her colleagues were involved in dating the archeological site of Hueyatlaco in Mexico. There archeologists had discovered stone tools and wanted to know how old they were. Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues, using several different dating methods, got an age of over 250,000 years for the site. The archeologists rejected the age because it contradicted their theories of human origins and the peopling of the Americas. Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues tried to independently publish their report, but experienced difficulty in doing so. Steen McIntyre wrote in a letter (March 29, 1979) to H. J. Fullbright, an editor of a book in which her report was supposed to be published (but never was): “Archeologists are in a considerable uproar about Hueyatlaco—they refuse even to consider it. I’ve learned from second hand sources that I am considered by various members of the profession to be (1) incompetent, (2) a news monger, (3) an opportunist, (4) dishonest, (5) a fool.”

From time to time, scientists who support the current evolutionary theories of human origins announce discoveries of bones of apemen that appear to confirm their ideas. These discoveries are promoted in the mainstream media as “our ancestors” and as “missing links” in the imagined evolutionary chain.

Eventually her paper was published in a geological publication. Steen-McIntyre wrote in a letter to one of the editors (Steven Porter, 8 February 1980): “The ms [manuscript] I’d like to submit gives the geologic evidence. It’s pretty clear cut, and if it weren’t for the fact a lot of anthropology textbooks would have to be rewritten, I don’t think we would have had any problems getting the archeologists to accept it. As it is, no anthro journal will touch it with a ten foot pole.”

A few years ago, a scholar was putting together a collection of essays about Alfred Russel Wallace, who along with Darwin was the cofounder of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Wallace was also involved in research into paranormal. Darwin did not approve of his involvement in such things. In my book Human Devolution, I have a chapter about Wallace’s research into the paranormal. The scholar invited me to submit an essay based on that chapter to be included in his book. I submitted the essay to him, but it did not wind up in the book, because of the objections of the editor from the academic publishing company that was going to bring out the book. The editor objected to my reputation as a maverick researcher, with nonmainstream ideas.

One thing I like about Doug Kenyon is that he gives me complete freedom to choose my topics for my column. There is no knowledge filtering going on here. The words you see are mine, unedited and unchanged.

Recently, I put together forty-nine of my Atlantis Rising columns in a book called The Forbidden Archeologist. What I hope to do is give people who are not already readers of Atlantis Rising the chance to see the columns, with no knowledge filtering.

Michael A. Cremo (aka Drutakarma Dasa) has been a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness since 1974. His latest book, The Forbidden Archeologist,as well as his other books, are available from his website www.mcremo.com.

You already know that the processed milk sold in shops remarkably differs from the cow’s original gift of love. Now, clever scientists want to distort the miracle food even more. They do this by cloning cows—altering them by inserting human genes into their DNA. The process entails implanting genetically modified embryos of dairy cows into surrogate mother cows.

Since not every woman nurses her children, and formula milk for babies is known to be an inferior substitute, biotech investment money senses a market. The scheme? By scrambling the DNA of cow embryos with human genes, a “supermilk” will flow—concocted to have all the goodness the cow’s udder gives plus the high quantities of key nutrients a woman’s breast provides.

The research leader says, “For the ‘human-like milk’, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.”

The lab reveals they have built up a herd of around 300 cows that are able to turn out “humanized cow’s milk.” Described in the scientific peer-reviewed journal “Public Library of Science One,” these transgenic animals, as they are called, physically resemble normal cows.

Tucked away in China, where the biotech laws are lax and the controversy zero, the experiments continue, while the rest of the GM food world waits. The scientists involved have, so far, managed to produce three generations of altered cows, but commercial production of the cow-human milk would require much larger herds.

In two particular trials, of 42 modified cows birthed, 26 died—10 immediately after birth and another 6 a few months later.

Biotech scientists throughout the world readily accept that the cloning technology used in genetic modification can affect the development and survival of cloned animals. The admitted scientific mystery, though, is why.

Insisting that the “human-like milk” is as safe as that from ordinary cows, the director of State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology certifies its flavor: “The [concocted] milk tastes stronger than normal milk.” The medium and long range affect on the cows, humans, and nature? Unknown.

Trust them.

The invisible hand of the market economy and its ethics, monitored by the virtuous politicians we’ve elected, will see us through.

Dr. Stevenson has devoted the last forty years to the scientific documentation of pas life memories of children from all over the world.  He has over 3000 cases in his files.  Many people, including skeptics and scholars, agree that these cases offer the best evidence yet for reincarnation.

Forty years of research by Professor Ian Stevenson (University of Virginia) provides impressive evidence that each one of us is different from his/her physical body and is able to function independently of it. Stevenson has published dozens of carefully-researched cases (see bibliography) in which young children report verifiable details of what they claim were previous lives. The following is a typical case in terms of obscure and detailed information reported by the child. It is atypical in that the previous personality predicted his rebirth.

Obscure and Verifiable Details

In 1945 Victor Vincent, a resident of Sitka, Alaska, informed a young friend of his, Mrs. Chotkin, that he was to die soon and be reborn as her son. He expressed the desire that in his next life as her son he would not stutter as he did in this life. He pulled up his shirt and showed her a scar on his back that was the result of a surgical operation performed several years earlier. The small round holes of the stitches were clearly visible. He also showed her a scar on the right side of his nose (near the eye) that was the result of a surgical operation there. He informed her that in his next life as her son he would have the same marks on his body in the same places, and thereby she would be able to recognize him as Victor Vincent reborn.

A year later he died. Eighteen months thereafter Mrs. Chotkin gave birth to a boy she named Corliss. She told Stevenson that on the body of Corliss at the time of his birth were the same marks, in the same places, as those on the body of Victor Vincent. In 1962 Stevenson visited Alaska and described the mark on Corliss’s back: “It was heavily pigmented and raised. It extended about one inch in length and a quarter inch in width. Along its margins one could still easily discern several small round marks outside the main scar. Four of these on one side lined up like the stitch wounds of surgical operations” (Stevenson, 1974, p.260).

Eliminating Alternate Explanations

Critics claiming fraud by Mrs. Chotkin for monetary gain are silenced by Stevenson’s report that she gained no money from him or anyone else. The claim that she faked the case for notoriety is refuted by the fact that hardly anyone (including her own daughter) was aware that she believed Corliss was Victor Vincent reborn. The claim that she faked the birthmarks is hard to believe, since she was a simple housewife with no access to the sophisticated lab equipment required to fake birthmarks. In fact, it is doubtful that anyone in the world in 1962 would have been able to fake the birthmarks well enough to fool Stevenson (himself an M.D. and professor).

One day when Corliss’s mother was trying to get him to say his name, instead of saying the name “Corliss” he said “Don’t you know me? I’m Kahkody” (Stevenson, 1974, p.260). Kahkody was a nickname of Victor Vincent.

Corliss identified strongly with Victor Vincent and was able to spontaneously recognize a number of people that Victor Vincent had known. Stevenson (1974, p.261) said that when Corliss was two years old he recognized Victor Vincent’s son named William. Corliss saw him on the street and spontaneously said, “There is William, my son.” About that same time Corliss also spontaneously recognized a stepdaughter of Victor Vincent’s. He saw her at the docks of Sitka and correctly said her name, Susie. At that time he was being pushed by his mother along the street in a carriage. Stevenson said that Corliss exhibited great excitement when he saw her, so much so that he was jumping up and down. He said, “There is my Susie.” Corliss also hugged her with great affection. Corliss recognized Susie before his mother had noticed her. Stevenson mentioned that Mrs. Chotkin did not go to the docks with the intention of meeting Susie. In a similar way, when Corliss was three years old he spontaneously recognized and Victor Vincent’s widow and called her by her correct name, Rose. He recognized her in a crowd of people before Mrs. Chotkin had seen her. Stevenson reported that Corliss also recognized a number of other people that Victor Vincent had known.

Stevenson (1974, p.261-262) wrote that Corliss was able to provide a detailed account of certain events that had occurred in the life of Victor Vincent. One day Corliss related an experience Vincent had had when he was out on a fishing trip. The engine of Vincent’s boat had broken and left him helpless in one of the many hazardous channels of southeastern Alaska. Vincent wanted to attract the attention of any ship that might be passing by, but he thought that most crews would not take much notice of an ordinary fisherman. It turns out that he happened to be a part-time worker for the Salvation Army, and he had with him a Salvation Army uniform. He put on this uniform and rowed in a small boat to attract the attention of a passing ship named the North Star. He asked some of the crew members to deliver a message for him. Mrs. Chotkin heard this story directly from Victor Vincent himself when he was alive. She was sure that Corliss had not heard the story from her or her husband before he told it to them.

On another occasion Mrs. Chotkin and Corliss were at the house that was previously owned by Mrs. Chotkin and her family during the life of Victor Vincent. Corliss pointed to a room in the house and said that he (as Vincent) and his wife had slept in this room when they visited the Chotkins. This statement is impressive since at the time Corliss was visiting the house, it had been reorganized and was being used for purposes other than an ordinary residential house. None of the rooms in it were recognizable as bedrooms. But the room that Corliss pointed to had in fact been occupied by Victor Vincent and his wife when they had visited the Chotkins.

The claim that Corliss acquired all this information by psychic power (and hence reincarnation is not required to explain the informational aspects of this and other similar cases) is refuted by the observation that Corliss was unable to provide such impressive information about anyone other than Victor Vincent. The same is true for the many other cases reported by Stevenson.

Mrs. Chotkin told Stevenson that certain of Corliss’s behavior patterns closely resembled those of Victor Vincent. She mentioned that Corliss combed his hair forward over his forehead in the same way that Vincent had done, although she had tried to train Corliss to comb his hair in exactly the opposite manner.

As mentioned earlier, Victor Vincent stuttered severely and told Mrs. Chotkin a year before his death that he hoped he would stutter less in his next life as her son. Corliss also stuttered severely when he was young, until he received speech therapy around the age of ten. Vincent was a very religious Christian. When Corliss was young, he expressed similar devoutness. Vincent was very fond of handling boats and living on the water. Corliss had the same interest. In fact, Corliss surprised his parents by repairing a boat engine without any training. Both Vincent and Corliss were left-
handed.

Correlation Between Birthmarks and Wounds

Stevenson (1987, p.101) wrote that he had researched hundreds of cases in which a child claiming reincarnation had distinctive birthmarks supporting this claim, and in about thirty cases he had obtained independent corroboration (in the form of medical records or autopsies) of similar marks on the body of the previous personality. These are described in Stevenson (1997). There are many cases in which a child reported that he was violently murdered (usually by shooting or stabbing) in his previous life, and the child had on his body a birthmark of the same shape and in the same place as the fatal wound in his previous life. Stevenson wrote (1987, p.101): “Birthmarks and birth defects related to the previous personality seem to me to provide some of the strongest evidence in favor of reincarnation as the best interpretation for the cases. They are objectively observable (I have photographed several hundred of them), and for most of them the only serious alternative explanation that I can think of is a psychic force on the part of the baby’s mother that influences the body of the embryo or fetus within her. However, this explanation, which is itself almost as mind-stretching (for the average Westerner) as reincarnation, can be firmly excluded in about twelve cases in which the child’s mother and father had never heard of the identified previous personality until after the child’s birth.”

Those who want to eliminate the hypothesis of reincarnation and explain everything as psychic force on the part of the child must take into account the fact that the marks are present on the child’s body at the time of birth. This means that the child would have had to be able to wield this psychic force while in his mother’s womb, which is more consistent with the hypothesis of reincarnation than psychic force without reincarnation.

Functioning Without a Physical Body

Dr. Stevenson reported a number of cases in which the conscious self existed for days, weeks and even years without a physical body and acquired information by transcorporal senses. (Transcorporal senses refer to senses that are different from those of the physical body and able to function independently of it.) For example, a Thai boy named Bongkuch Promsin claimed that in his previous life he was a Laotian man named Chamrat who was stabbed to death (Stevenson, 1987, p.68). After the murder, the conscious self that had resided in the body of Chamrat remained in a discarnate state for seven years, staying near a bamboo tree in the vicinity of the murder. One rainy day the discarnate Chamrat saw Bongkuch’s father and accompanied him home on a bus. Bongkuch’s father later told Stevenson that he happened to visit Hua Tanon (the place where Chamrat was murdered) shortly before his wife became pregnant with Bongkuch. Bongkuch’s father said that the day he went to Hua Tanon was in fact a rainy day.

An Indian boy named Veer Singh said that after the death of his previous body (belonging to a man named Som Dutt) he, as a discarnate conscious self, remained near Som Dutt’s family and observed their activities. Veer Singh said that he accompanied members of this family who left the house at night and went out alone. Stevenson said that Som Dutt’s mother had a dream in which Som Dutt told her that he had accompanied his brother a number of times when his brother had surreptitiously left the house at night to attend local fairs. When this brother was asked, he admitted that he was in fact attending local fairs at night, but no one in the family knew about it until Som Dutt’s mother had this dream. Stevenson added that Veer Singh also knew about other private family affairs that took place after Som Dutt’s death and before Veer Singh was born, including the fact that the family bought a camel, that they were involved in a lawsuit, and that several children were born during this period (Stevenson, 1987, p.110).

The persons who reported seeing things in the discarnate state could not have been using physical eyes. Thus, the above evidence supports the hypothesis that the conscious self is inherently transcorporal and possesses transcorporal senses.

Reincarnation is a Natural Process That Happens to All of Us

The idea that reincarnation is a natural process that all conscious selves undergo when their physical bodies die is supported by Stevenson’s statements that it is easy to find persons who claim to remember a previous life in certain places such as West Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon and the northwestern part of North America (Stevenson 1980, p.13; 1987, p.93). Stevenson said that in these places he has received so many reports of possible cases that he simply did not have enough time to investigate them all. It is important to note that cases of the reincarnation type are found not only in southeast Asia but all over the world. Stevenson wrote, “Fortunately, many new cases are available, and as I mentioned in the General Introduction to this series, I should have no difficulty whatever in indicating places in several countries where an investigator can easily find more cases of this type than he could possibly study” (Stevenson, 1980, p.351).

Stevenson mentioned that he has also found and investigated many cases of the reincarnation type in the other parts of North America and Europe. The lesser frequency of reported cases in these countries is due to the fact that many parents ignore or suppress their children’s statements that would support such cases, and hence they can not come to the attention of investigators like Stevenson (Stevenson, 1987, p.93-94). Careful studies by other scientists have uncovered dozens of cases similar to those reported by Stevenson. See, for example, Pasricha (1990, 1992, 1998), Mills (1989, 1990), Haraldsson (1991, 1997), and Keil (1996).

One might raise the following objection: “If reincarnation is actually true, why don’t I or more people I know remember a previous life?” A reasonable answer is that the power to remember a previous life is a rare talent like Einstein’s mathematical talent or Mozart’s musical talent. The fact that I and my friends do not have these talents does not mean that no one has these talents. Obviously Einstein and Mozart were real historical persons. Another important consideration is that there are things which we know we went through (such as being in our mother’s womb) but which we have no memory of. To say that I was not in my mother’s womb because I don’t remember it is clearly fallacious logic.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Haraldsson, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1997, 11(3), 323
• Haraldsson, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1991, 5(2), 233
• Keil, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1996, 10(4), 467
• Mills, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990, 4(2), 171
• Mills, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1989, 3(2), 133
• Pasricha, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1998, 12(2), 259
• Pasricha, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1992, 6(2), 167
• Pasricha, S., Claims of Reincarnation, New Delhi: Harman, 1990
• Stevenson, I., Reincarnation and Biology, London: Praeger, 1997
• Stevenson, I., Children Who Remember Previous Lives, University of Virginia Press, 1987
• Stevenson, I., Cases of the Reincarnation Type, Volume 3, University of Virginia Press, 1980
• Stevenson, I., Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, University of Virginia Press, 1974