Mod+ 270. ASU PROF. LAWRENCE KRAUSS CALLS FOR DALAI LAMA TO STEP DOWN OVER REINCARNATION CLAIM

On another forum I asked if there was anyone who did past life regression hypnosis and if they ever had a client who didn't remember past lives and if that might be explained because they were on their first incarnation. Two people said that never happened. Another said there were first timers but they had previous lives on other planets. It doesn't really impact Alex's question but I thought it was interesting. Its not a random sampling of the population, people who were on their first life might not have any interest in paying for a past life regression session.

One good story from the thread:

I have also worked with a child who was extremely drawn to a horse he saw each day on his way to school. The first time he saw the horse he was 4 and was extremely excited and started to cry. He told his mother he knew that horse. When she asked him where he had seen the horse before he said the horse had been his best friend when he was ' a man with brown skin' when she questioned him further he informed her that the horse wasn't a horse at that time...he was a man just like him! .... Every time the horse saw my friend's son it would gallop across to be near him on the other side of the fence. They had a real thing going. ...

I don't know how a researcher could verify something like this.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps we are looking at this all wrong and this question may not have much relevance if we approach it at a different angle. To formulate a serious answer to this question, one should address the concept of how time works first. And how do we address time? Does anybody really have a clue? The 200,000 +/- years that humans apparently have been on this Earth is a nano second next to eternity. We may have over 14 trillion souls (just a guess for argument's sake ;)) and most of them have yet to be incarnated, at least here on Earth. Maybe these ... yet to be incarnated souls ... decided to wait until tomorrow because of the apprehension of living the physical life. So this "waiting until tomorrow" could be over 200,000 years in our linear timeframe. The human existence on this planet is so short and we are so young!
not sure about the details, but agree with the spirit of it... I mean:
- we don't understand time
- we don't understand "souls"
- we don't understand individuated consciousness

... and yet we're gonna try and give a serious response to Krauss' crackpot idea?
 
Last edited:
This is a very simple concept from hindu perspective

Everything is a spirit from smallest atom to largest human being

the goal of life is evolution of consciousness - from unconsciousness to consciousness

a rock or stone is conscious as well .. the difference between a human being and a rock is only of degree( in terms of consciousness )..

first there is a development of Subconsciousness or unconsciousness which is automatic/fixed in nature.. with no flexibility and always under control of higher power

metal melts at exactly the same temperature always , water boils at exactly 100c

then it moves into living things .. it becomes a cell where it is somewhat alive and under control of more powerful cells

then it becomes a plant , then a tree

then it moves into animals where little bit of consciousness starts to develop but unconsciousness is predominant .. that spirit will continue to reincarnate into different animals until it attains certain level of maturity .. some animals are ruthless while some show little bit consciousness ..

after 100s of reincarnations into animal body of different sex and types and attaining maturity it becomes a human

that is why in early stages of human consciousness , it acts like an animal ( mostly ruled by subconsciousness )

what is evil ? for eg a rapist/killer/thief ? they are all acting under the influence of subconsciousness .. a rapist is thinking of enjoying the lust , so he isn't much conscious about other consequences.. his mind is ruled by subconscious instinct, his only objective is fulfilment of his desire , he will go to any heights to satisfy that .. a killer is fully focused on killing .. taking revenge or whatever.. consciousness is very weak than the influence of subconsciousness in his mind

after taking 1000s of birth in human body he learns to outgrow these lower desires .. then consciousness starts to come at par with subconsciousness
he thinks before he acts .. his moral and reasoning develops and he starts controlling his subconscious nature... he starts looking for higher values .. like reason of existence why i am here ? science and culture develops ( we are at this stage right now )

then after another 1000s of births going through every experience outgrowing every lower nature desire .. the consciousness evolves where he starts mastering the external environment and develops control over its surroundings.. psychokinesis , telepathy , Esp everything starts developing in small degrees

then he becomes an angel/deity which are way more flexible and can master their surroundings pretty well .. their lessons include helping and taking care of humanity and guiding the spiritual evolution .. then he incarnates into higher angels / arch angels

GOD is collective consciousness.. not a being or an entity .. it is the total sum of all everything you can think of .. the word god is degraded a lot today so let's call it Universe .. it is without form or shape

then finally when his consciousness is at perfect maturity.. his consciousness merges with god consciousness .. he attains freedom from cycle of reincarnation .. and becomes a part of god - eternal, blissful, free , omnipresent , omniscience , omnipotent

until then a spirit will continue to reincarnate no matter how many tries it needs to take .. evolving himself , perfecting himself everytime little by little... it always moves ahead , it never goes back

We all have been animals ,criminals ,killers , rapists etc in our previous lives and have outgrown these desires now ..

all of this is governed by 1 simple law .. law of equilibrium ( karma )/ law of cause and effect .. evolution is a part of this law ..

all true religions speak the same truth .. the problem is they are highly symbolic .. they are not to be interpreted literally at all which is the cause of majority of conflicts/fights/ignorance between these religions

Jesus,buddha,krishna aren't any different from any human being .. the difference was only level of consciousness , degree of maturity, stage of perfection.. they had already reached the highest level of consciousness called christ consciousness or enlightenment by buddha... they were already free from cycle of reincarnation , they were already god incarnates or sons of god .. meaning a part of god consciousness.. they all talked about different perspectives .. because everyone of us sees different perspective ..

Each and every human being will achieve that state one day .. yes even james randi/dawkins as well lol...

So the main Question is why are there more souls now ? the answer is some are new incarnates coming from animals , some are old reincarnates of humans , some are angels incarnated in human form those who have been here long time ago.. and some are demons incarnate as well.. this world is a mix of everything

Human incarnation is a very different one .. it allows a spirit to grow more faster .. its a very balanced form with many challenges

animal form is too crude and low for spirituality and higher thought functioning .. and the angel form is too relaxing and free .. that is why these NDErs feel very light and good and amazing.. when one is in a soul form they are so happy and ease at life that they are satisfied and contended with their lives, forgetting any need for the development and that is why they are urged to incarnate into human beings to progress faster..

As for proving ? each and everybody of us can prove this to ourselves but not to the whole world .. every scientific discovery , every invention is guided by the same law of equilibrium/karma .. simultaneous discovery of new things by different scientists, rise of new diseases.. every scientific discovery is planned ahead.. rise and fall of religions and ages.. whatever happens on a global scale is planned ahead, you aren't allowed to mess with the global scale.. those inventions released before its time are suppressed/lost .. it will happen when it is supposed to happen

there are many methods with which you can speed up your development .. you can reach enlightenment in 1 life time but that requires dedication and self control

buddhist monks contemplate on a chair for their whole lifetime and reach enlightenment ..it is said if we can keep our mind fixed only at 1 thought for 4 hours without distracting , we will reach enlightenment at that instance .. it is simple but extremely difficult

now why what's the point of all this ? i don't know it yet..
 
Last edited:
not sure about the details, but agree with the spirit of it... I mean:
- we don't understand time
- we don't understand "souls"
- we don't understand individuated consciousness

... and yet we're gonna try and give a serious response to Krauss' crackpot idea?

This is a fruitful angle, Alex. I think this approach is likely to be more successful than talking about "meaning". But ultimately, I think it is fruitless to try to engage people like Krauss on ideas like these. They simply aren't interested in stepping outside their reality box.

I can understand why Krauss wouldn't want to engage with the work on reincarnation. It's outside his wheelhouse. I watched "The Unbelievers." This guy is way wrapped up in being an atheist rock star. Even the idea that he would consider the Stevenson or Tucker work on reincarnation would tar him as a "kook."

I find it a constant struggle to remain truly skeptical--to remain open to new ideas without becoming an advocate for any particular viewpoint.
 
I find it a constant struggle to remain truly skeptical--to remain open to new ideas without becoming an advocate for any particular viewpoint.

I guess it makes sense to think of your skepticality on any subject, more as a real number between 0 and 1. In other words, you can't help but respond to the shallowness of LC and other skeptical thinkers by moving in the opposite direction, without moving all the way. I wouldn't mind physicists that simply refused to discuss issues related to consciousness/spirituality, but if they decide to do so, they have to present a thought-through position.

Alex has certainly tried and succeeded in getting prominent skeptical thinkers on his podcasts - people who represent the orthodox position, if you like - and the fact that they don't come up with a coherent set of ideas, leaves me thinking that absolute materialism is untenable.

A lot of people here consider me to be a proponent, but I think I would put myself somewhere like 0.9 on the above scale.

David
 
not sure about the details, but agree with the spirit of it... I mean:
- we don't understand time
- we don't understand "souls"
- we don't understand individuated consciousness

... and yet we're gonna try and give a serious response to Krauss' crackpot idea?

I had to use a somewhat hypothetical illustration to get to the spirit of my intention. Of course, no one FULLY understands time or the nature of souls and individual consciousness. However, maybe we're closer to having a better understanding. I was only offering a different approach to answering question 3 as it doesn't have to be a stumbling block to believing reincarnation. It only seems to be a stumbling block if one is stuck with linear thinking when it comes to time.
 
I guess it makes sense to think of your skepticality on any subject, more as a real number between 0 and 1. In other words, you can't help but respond to the shallowness of LC and other skeptical thinkers by moving in the opposite direction, without moving all the way. I wouldn't mind physicists that simply refused to discuss issues related to consciousness/spirituality, but if they decide to do so, they have to present a thought-through position.

Alex has certainly tried and succeeded in getting prominent skeptical thinkers on his podcasts - people who represent the orthodox position, if you like - and the fact that they don't come up with a coherent set of ideas, leaves me thinking that absolute materialism is untenable.

A lot of people here consider me to be a proponent, but I think I would put myself somewhere like 0.9 on the above scale.

David
I think even developing a passing familiarity with many of the ideas surrounding consciousness and spirituality can take years. I may be wrong, but I think this forum illustrates a similar phenomena--some people aren't afraid to consider alternative ideas, even at the expense of occasionally feeling or seeming silly. Others prefer to take a much more solidified stance where they appear to have it all figured out, even if they are quite vocal about their openness to new ideas and being proved wrong.
 
I had to use a somewhat hypothetical illustration to get to the spirit of my intention. Of course, no one FULLY understands time or the nature of souls and individual consciousness. However, maybe we're closer to having a better understanding. I was only offering a different approach to answering question 3 as it doesn't have to be a stumbling block to believing reincarnation. It only seems to be a stumbling block if one is stuck with linear thinking when it comes to time.

agreed.
 
Also, contemplating the notion of infinity can turn something on in a person's brain. It did that to mine when I was about the age of 11.
 
Also, contemplating the notion of infinity can turn something on in a person's brain. It did that to mine when I was about the age of 11.
It's interesting how it is fairly easy to imagine "time" going forward and not ever stopping. But time having a beginning? And nothing before that? Or even having no beginning?

I think even our human logic and rationality must have limits. However, I will not abandon it by jumping on some bandwagon of proscribed spirituality. For me, if I'm going to have any spirituality at all, my rationality must come along for the ride.

My Best,
Bertha
 
I may be wrong, but I think this forum illustrates a similar phenomena--some people aren't afraid to consider alternative ideas, even at the expense of occasionally feeling or seeming silly. Others prefer to take a much more solidified stance where they appear to have it all figured out, even if they are quite vocal about their openness to new ideas and being proved wrong.
I hope I manage to stay in your first category - at least most of the time!

David
 
His attempts to excuse not even looking at the available research on the subject of reincarnation amount to saying, "There is no evidence of reincarnation, therefore the evidence for reincarnation must be wrong." His assertion that he only has time to examine certain research is, of course, plainly true, and a fine admission from someone who restricts his proclamations to those subjects on which he has examined the research, but it's a poor excuse from someone who disseminates his opinions on the subject frequently.

The old 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' defence! I understand why Alex refutes this. After all, a scientist does the research, and, regardless of the claim, it should live or die in peer review and independent research. In practice, I agree that the evidence for something as paradigm smashing as consciousness independent of the flesh should be extraordinary. But it can be as extraordinary as can be if folk like Krauss are never going to look at it, and worse use the 'extraordinary evidence requires...' mantra as a reason to avoid looking at it.

Why did he keep talking about Russell's teapot? It was completely irrelevant to the discussion, as far as I could see. Krauss just seemed to be governed by ingrained behaviour, constantly repeating materialist cliches.
 
Why did he keep talking about Russell's teapot? It was completely irrelevant to the discussion, as far as I could see. Krauss just seemed to be governed by ingrained behaviour, constantly repeating materialist cliches.
I noticed that, several times he raised things which were not in response to anything Alex had said, he just raised a subject so he could then throw it down again. It kind of got in the way of having a discussion.
 
I think even our human logic and rationality must have limits. However, I will not abandon it by jumping on some bandwagon of proscribed spirituality. For me, if I'm going to have any spirituality at all, my rationality must come along for the ride.

My Best,
Bertha

I think you are right that logic and rationality must have limits. The logical mind is only a tool in the quest for truth. I think spirituality is the other side of the coin. The intuitive mind which I classify as spiritual is a very important tool in the quest for truth as well. Even great scientists who have made earth shattering discoveries have usually used the intuitive mind to get a great insight and then afterwards used logic to build upon the intuitive insight.
 
Since this episode was partly centered on reincarnation I will play devil's advocate and pose a couple of skeptical questions:

1) Are spirits waiting in line while living creatures procreate?
Sounds goofy, but it's intentionally provocative.

Think of pregnancy from rape. Not exactly an act of love.
There are between 25 000 to 32 000 instances every year only in the US, not the mention war zones where figures can be scarily high.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_from_rape)

From our perspective it's very hard to conceive how thousands of people were suddenly reborn during the war in Bosnia, Rwanda, Liberia etc...

There is a small sample of data from regression therapy that suggests these events are kind of "decided" in another dimension, so even pregnancy rape would have a "purpose" and souls agreed to participate in advance.

I guess one has to take something like this on faith. There's no way our mind can wrap around such a concept without a brain short circuit :D

The strongest arguments I have against this view is that it doesn't seem to leave much space for choices and free will, but more importantly it contradicts the concept of "earth school" that is usually proposed.

At school, teachers protect the children from harm and intervene before any child is hurt or something bad happens. The kind of school proposed by the evidence in Newton's books and some of the other regressionists, is one where we are taught that fire is hot by being burned alive at the stake. Or that war is horrid by experiencing slaughter and genocide.

It also contradicts much of the spiritual/mediumistic literature, where souls of people killed violently cross over in a state of trauma that takes long time to heal. Similarly the perpetrator of such criminal acts tend to linger in the lower levels, so attached to their negative emotions.

2) Is evolution of the soul really taking place?
We have been around for hundreds of thousands of years but history reports the first civilizations to be only 6-10K years old.
Since then we have had a roller coaster of ups and downs, with very dark periods followed by prosperous and bright ages.

2000 years ago Jesus Christ said that "the meek shall inherit the earth"... unfortunately he forgot to mention when. Even a guestimate would have been nice... :D

On a optimistic day I can certainly find signs in recent history that humans are slowly making the planet a better place, but I fear I am probably just cherry picking. On the whole I don't seem to be able to find convincing evidence that our psyche has evolved towards a more loving, compassionate attitude and that we're better humans than we were, say, 5000 years ago.

Maybe my time scale is just too small for the standards of the Infinite :)

--Devil's advocate mode off--

cheers
 
I'm willing to accept the point that our lives can't have meaning unless meaning is somehow built into the fabric of the universe, and similar things could be said about mind, consciousness, value and love. Something like panpsychism is probably the best theory.

But this being the case, meaning in life has nothing whatever to do with God, the afterlife, immortality or Psi. Life just is meaningful. It is inherently meaningful, and the existence of these other things is neither here nor there.

But even though this is probably the most reasonable position, Skeptiko is committed to the idea that life is totally meaningless unless there's an afterlife.
 
On a optimistic day I can certainly find signs in recent history that humans are slowly making the planet a better place, but I fear I am probably just cherry picking. On the whole I don't seem to be able to find convincing evidence that our psyche has evolved towards a more loving, compassionate attitude and that we're better humans than we were, say, 5000 years ago.
I think a distinction needs to be made between the individual and collective consciousness. It may be that more evolved souls are not here, they have outgrown this planet. Or equally, the most evolved might be the least visible. It isn't clear what we should expect to observe.
 
I think a distinction needs to be made between the individual and collective consciousness. It may be that more evolved souls are not here, they have outgrown this planet. Or equally, the most evolved might be the least visible. It isn't clear what we should expect to observe.
Good point, but shouldn't we be a reflection of this evolved collective consciousness?
In other words, being all connected, shouldn't we retain a bit of the collective experience and manifest it?

While I write this, I hear echoing in my head... "You know nuthin', John Snow" :D :D
 
Good point, but shouldn't we be a reflection of this evolved collective consciousness?
In other words, being all connected, shouldn't we retain a bit of the collective experience and manifest it?

While I write this, I hear echoing in my head... "You know nuthin', John Snow" :D :D
It's really hard to figure out how far we've come. For example we look at ancient megaliths and earthen embankments, there was obviously some sort of organised society, but what went on at those places? I've heard everything from gladiatorial combat, healing, human sacrifice, astronomy, ancestor-worship, commercial trading ... the list of speculations goes on and on. If we don't know where we've come from, how can we say how far we've travelled?

One thing we might say, in Roman times, an advanced and highly civilised society had entertainments involving humans fighting to the death. Mostly we seem to have moved away from that in our public spectacles.

Nowadays, we can look around the world and see conflicts and brutality, but to me this seems a phase which has been triggered in part by increased communication and increased ability to travel. In the longer term I think travel and communication will prove forces for good, but there are no simple answers to what takes place as the peoples of the world come to terms with the fact of one another's existence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top