Discussion
(This is an excerpt from a University Of Metaphysical Sciences course at www.umsonline.org, please feel free to visit the school website)
As indicated at the outset of this paper, a proper examining of this or any other topic cannot be made in so brief a time. Especially true is the case with any issue of religion. When there is no definitive physical or scientific evidence to a thing, the burden lies in being able to sustain the logical structure of an argument. As when Einstein published his theory of relativity, the world was years away from being able to prove even a tiny part of his thesis. However, in his case the logical reasoning (the mathematics) was sound and so his theory remained “innocent until proven guilty” so to speak…that is, accepted until able to be either proven or disproven.
The problem with matters touching on religion, life, the creator, soul and such, are that most people are at some level emotionally attached to their beliefs. As found in other areas of life, emotion and logic rarely coincide. A true thinker must strive to be a pure thinker, and be relentless in the pursuit of truth and in the testing of one’s own beliefs. The author of this course has had occasion to undergo a wide range of instruction in both the arts and sciences, including a broad study of many religions and training and study in metaphysics. Without prejudice or predisposition I am inclined to evaluate the authors and texts on the basis of their absolute truths. That is, if a thing is True, then it must always be true, else it is not True. To wit, 2 plus 2 must always equal 4, else mathematics is useless.
With that in mind, I query the reader to consider the following: From the Buddha to Seth, and all the Lamas, seers and enlightened masters in between, we have inconsistencies. This is certainly true in most religions, and before an emotional rush to rebuttal, I remind the reader that as a matter of logic, if all of these persons, beings and entities were entirely valid, then the information about reincarnation and the afterlife would be consistent. Unlike the teachings through parables or analogies, these masters and Meta-beings give specific and intrinsic details about karma and the nature of reincarnation that are distinctly different. For whatever reason, 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. One would assume that if Seth, the Buddha, Sri Chinmoy and others were all exactly what they believed themselves to be, and as enlightened as they believed themselves to be, then all would be in accord, but they are not. Therefore one must begin to look at their own very compelling reasoning and teachings to try to see if their arguments are consistent within themselves. Again, I look not to the spiritually interpretive lessons, but to the specific, fact oriented instructions and information. That is, where Jesus may have said, “The kingdom of God is within you,” and scholars and thinkers may debate the meaning of this statement (which debate must remain consistent with the rest of the authority’s stated beliefs) I refer here to such items as; skills are carried over from incarnation to incarnation, there is a period of rest between incarnations, one may incarnate as a lower form based on the law of Karma or one may only incarnate as a human being. Such items bear scrutiny and comparison not just with other teachers but within a teacher’s own arguments.
The second, and larger point, is that reincarnation predicates itself on the basis of the human experience. That is, it pre-supposes the material existence to be real and defining, and then seeks to define itself and the concept of soul and being through a base of material existence. This is a form of a priori reasoning in itself. That is, if I were deluded to think myself a spy from the planet Neptune, I would subsequently base my explanations from that standpoint.
There are two flaws in this position regarding a serious study of metaphysics. First, pure metaphysics would hold that there is no matter or material existence and that all we see or know on this plane is a delusional dream of being. While a reincarnationist, from a purely metaphysical point of logic, would be regarded as one who tried to infuse the erroneous dream of existence into an explanation of his/her spiritual existence, a true metaphysician would perhaps say that what the reincarnationists regard the “soul” state between reincarnations as the True state of being. Those who cannot or are not ready to accept the truth or responsibility of such existence are tempted by the sensual physical realm to re-enter a dream. In short, what reincarnationists consider real and valid, is actually the unreal dream state in the logic of pure metaphysics.
Rather than believe that a soul has to forget and enter into a physical existence for some sort of learning that can have no possible validity or impact to the infinite soul self, which needs to learn nothing, isn’t it more logical (both in reasoning and assumption) to assume that we are all souls existing in a realm of infinite possibilities and experience moments of temptation and lapse to consider ourselves as separate from the One? If such a soul were to consider itself separate from the One, what would the result be? Even in the theories of the reincarnationists who hold that in the soul state to think a thing is to make it real, the result would be to find oneself in an existence based on separation of self from soul. That is exactly what the physical, mortal existence appears to be: an imagining made “real.”
Another theory which bears consideration is again suggested by the reincarnationists. In line with the previous arguments, the reincarnationist explanations report that there are 4, 5, 6, and more untold numbers of dimensions. We must then ask ourselves what a transdimensional object would look like when viewed in only three dimensions. In other words, how would a being of infinite dimension and consciousness appear in a mere three dimensional reality? Those beings that begin to have some consciousness of their identity as soul, rather than being merely human, would begin to manifest what appears to be rather peculiar and perhaps “miraculous” abilities within the three dimensions. If mind and consciousness have a tangible substance in infinity, that is if “thought takes shape” so to speak, and the reincarnationists admit this on some level, either through their explanations of karma or the “between incarnations plane,” then the infinitude and oneness of mind would appear, in three dimensions, like esp, psychic ability, foretelling, levitation and such.
Yet another possibility well within the scope of “evidence,” presented here but which is not considered by reincarnationists who are stuck in their preconception of material existence as the standpoint of explanation, is that of simultaneous existences. We can imagine that based on the glimpses of soul, and on the teachings of the masters, that time is not as we so often consistently and conclusively define it, a linear force. Time, within the infinite, would essentially cease to be. In such a scenario, we would simultaneously be experiencing prehistoric, medieval, turn of the century, futuristic, and modern experiences all at the same “time.”
To be sure, a significant portion of the blame for confusion about the teachings of the masters comes from the failings of their disciples who, strive as they might, inevitably corrupt the message according to their own limitations in understanding. In most cases it would be unintentional. However, especially in the case of the Christian Church, the schemes were intentional and maliciously designed in their inceptions. Despite this, it must be noted that such sentiments as, “The Christian teaching on life, death, and the hereafter is strictly a one-throw game; our entire destiny in eternity is supposed to be determined by our behavior in this lifetime, no matter how short or how cruelly luckless it be.” There is still fear of death, no matter what, and there is the incentive to live a good life since it is a “one chance” endeavor.
Make no mistake, the reincarnationist has essentially done nothing more than assuage the panicked fear of death. The reincarnationist merely gives a person more chances while suffering from the same delusions of physical based existence, pain and retribution as the Church. In fact, it is this egoistical and limited preoccupation with our current concept of being on the physical realm that limits all religions. The heart of the prejudice and misconception lies in this matter/physical based assumption which presupposes that life is only this plane. What about more lifetimes continued on alternately higher planes? Or successively less and less materiality until pure Oneness with Spirit is achieved? That we somehow can and must work from this limited dimensionality into some great leap into heaven or soul-state is a supposition that marks most of the writing and thinking on reincarnation, both within and without Christianity. How can one claim an enlightened view when that view remains irrevocably tied to a mortal, material existence, even if that existence is supposedly for ultimate spiritual growth? This is the same line of reasoning used by the early Catholic Church to force people to accept servitude and resign themselves to fate. Though reincarnationists have discounted a physical Hell, they have simply added more material lives to the equation without thought that we may progress out of materiality and into spirit by doing just that.
Here is that sense of fear of the unknown, a disturbing mental moment when we attempt to contemplate our place and purpose and to grasp the nature of ourselves in infinity and fall short. In bondage to the finite, material concepts, we leap over hurdles and challenges of logic and seek the comfort of that which we must overcome, all the while deluding ourselves that we have done more than we have. To become a metaphysician means to forsake physics as a pale imitation of the true metaphysics of being, to find and hold to the concept that 2 plus 2 equals 4 despite the seeming imbalance in the equation. To do else is to hold onto an inequality, an untruth, to assume the correct answer while still using an incorrect formula. The true determining factor in deciding whether or not reincarnation is real is asking yourself the question: ”Does this ring true to me?” Your soul knows the answer without a doubt. Let your heart answer this question, and deep down you will most likely “know” that reincarnation is real.