It is midnight; Thanksgiving Day, here in the US. I am very tired but, having read this chain of discussion, felt compelled to rise from my bed to write some things; for whom, I’m not sure, maybe, primarily, for myself.

This issue of reincarnation is a contentious one. I have been an afterlife researcher for almost 20 years, have read nearly 200 books, possess my own extensive bank of stories, not only about visits with psychics, but other very personal encounters with the Spirit world. And this is what I know: The scientific method, empirical investigation, while critically important – especially, in terms of presenting information to “newcomers” - will take us only so far down the road of certitude.

In this world and the next, people debate the reality of reincarnation! I remember when I first began looking into these things - I was surprised to learn of this lack of settled opinion. How could this be? Surely they, over there, would know about these things. But no. We on Earth, using the services of a psychic-medium, find that the answer one receives depends upon the “neighborhood” one visits. To make matters even more confusing, as Michael Tymn has pointed out, semantics muddies the waters with non-standard definitions of “reincarnation” offered by Silver Birch and Frederic Myers. Their version of reincarnation is no reincarnation at all; at least, nothing we would recognize or need to worry about.

I have come to see this: People here and over there debate reincarnation because this whole area subsumes another, even more uncharted, foundational domain. Allow me to offer an analogy.

Professor Daniel Robinson of Georgetown University once gave a lecture on the ancient Greeks and their concept of government. He said that we can’t answer the question regarding how men should be governed until we first establish what kind of life is the right kind of life for us to live; and we can’t answer that question until we first settle what kind of beings are we! And until we do that, we can’t have much of a position on the problem of ethics, which means we are flying blind to know what the polis should be. In other words, there is an interconnectedness of these questions, each one, a particular facet of a larger problem.

And I submit that, before the problem of reincarnation can be credibly addressed, we must first explore its foundations; that of, what is its purpose? We are instructed to accept, by some, that it is a kind of “salvation theory” that leads men to higher ground. But before we can answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ here, we must decide, what kind of beings are we, anyway? How do we learn? How do we progress and is it discontinuous? Is it possible to lose one’s hard-won enlightenment? Why would a Dark Realm exist if one could simply deposit oneself into the existential hopper, like new sausage, and be spit out the other end as who-knows-what? Are we beings-of-love? If so, which one of us, thus afflicted, would move a micrometer toward attainment of a new identity, as this would surely mean losing a dearly beloved. Do we have any measure of free will? – some say it’s the “prime directive” over there. What kind of self-respecting person, possessing such divine gift, would agree to lose his personhood? And if, as some say, we are involuntarily sent back to the Earth, then, what becomes of free will? There are many such questions that might be asked, but I will leave those for the moment.

In my meditations of these mysteries, I have not abandoned the scientific method. Science, here and there, will always be important. But I have come to see that it cannot compete with something else. I am reminded just now of Elizabeth Fry’s testimony (via Leslie Flint); she was also speaking, in a sense, of “the concept of government.” She said that, in her "neighborhood," so to speak, there is no competition; that no one wants to overrule another; that each person intuitively knows within him or herself what needs to be done and where to fit in. And I will strongly suggest to all that this mystical sense of the “inner oracle,” a profound subliminal knowing, but not by the scientific method, is where our future lies. I have begun to taste – so briefly, but the perception grows - of this method of accessing knowledge. And this, I sense, is our future. When we get to the other side, unless we begin to access this inner true self of ours, we shall still be endlessly debating reincarnation. No one will pass out a leaflet and say, here it is, here’s the truth, believe this. Unless we learn to do what Elizabeth and her friends do, we will be stuck on the lower levels of Summerland until we figure this out.

After reading all that is worth reading and hearing the interminable debates regarding reincarnation, I will tell you why I have utterly rejected it as a fairy tale. It is anti-humanistic and loathsome to my deepest person.

It is a deluded invention of the ego, the “false self,” that has not come to terms with who we are and how we work. Enlightenment does not require endless lives, but only one sacred moment of clarity. And many people are confused “over there” because many are still operating on the “false self” and have not yet discovered the real person, the “cosmos within.”

I completely reject reincarnation because it is repulsive to my soul and offends my every sensibility regarding my most heartfelt desires and aspirations. Therefore I know it is a lie. How do I know it? I know it because I trust myself and my own inner guidance system. And this inner knowing is all I have, it’s all you have – it’s all that each of us will ever have, without which, we shall never gain a sense of absolute certitude about anything.

Best regards to all,

Wayne Becker