Rebirth and the Scientific Method

I've been involved in a desultory discussion via comments on the blog Buddhist Geeks on the subject of reincarnation and the scientific method. This was sparked by a blog post entitled An Evidence Based Spirituality for the 21st century. In it Charles Tart argues for a scientific approach to ESP and reincarnation (Tart seems to prefer this term to 'rebirth') based on what he considers to be "solid evidence". I have a life-long interest in science, and studied it at school and university. Having invoked the scientific paradigm I think that Mr Tart needs to follow through on the implications of it, and here I will explore some of the them. I want to look particularly at reincarnation from two different points of view - methodological and philosophical - and show that we are far from having a scientific account of reincarnation.

The Problem of Method.

Mr Tart cites some 4000 cases collected at the University of Virginia Medical School, where research and publication continues on this subject, especially by Dr Jim Tucker. Tucker's informants, as Tart says, are children between the ages of 3 and 6; and the 'evidence' is the testimony of these infants. So already we must register some concerns. The theory of mind, the ability to distinguish others as self-conscious individual beings, only develops at around 3 or 4 years. Very young children like this have some difficulty distinguishing self from other; truth from fantasy; memory from imagination; overheard conversation from their own thoughts. So we must doubt their reliability as witnesses. As in legal cases, how one questions very young children has a strong determining effect on the answers you get. We could not accept this kind of 'evidence' without detailed scrutiny of the method - something which would be time consuming and beyond the scope of a blog post. For instance one group of researchers looking at children's evidence in sexual abuse cases conclude:

"It is now acknowledged that persistent suggestive questioning can lead children to provide accounts of events that never occurred, even when they first denied them. Sometimes the questioning results in the child developing a subjectively real memory for an event that never happened."

Such conclusions are widely replicated across a number of different disciplines over the last couple of decades. Even in adults memories are very plastic and subject to change; and subject to invention; imagination can come to seem like memory. Stories repeated by family members can come to seem like personal recollections, even when we weren't there, or born yet. Often the way we recall a situation depends on the emotions associated with the memory. This is why anecdote is seldom invoked as evidence by scientists. The fact that most of the informants are under six may well mean that after that age the distinction between fantasy and fact becomes clearer, or that the children are less able to be lead by enthusiastic researchers with something to prove.

The claim is often that the person could not possibly have known the details of their account from personal experience in this life. Having just trashed anecdote, I'll risk hypocrisy by sharing something from my own life. For years I had memories from childhood which involved an unaccountable knowledge of and respect for Buddhist monks. As a child I understood what meditation was, and once or twice sat down to meditate. It has a lot to do with why I was attracted to Buddhism as an adult. I grew up in a small town in New Zealand and I could not possibly have had contact with Buddhism in my childhood, as far as I know there were no Buddhists within a hundred miles. There was no way for me to have such knowledge from this life. Or so I thought. Last year I started re-watching the old TV show Kung Fu, and realised that this was the source of my 'memories' - it all came flooding back. I'd loved the show as a kid, 30+ years previously, but had simply not made the connection partly because so many years had passed.

If someone, especially a young child, says that they remember a past life, or even if they only appear to have a memory which cannot be explained, that is not the same thing as them actually having had a past life. How would one establish beyond any doubt that a so-called memory was of a past-life? We can easily accept the idea that people have a memory that they cannot account for; but why assume a past-life is the best explanation for this?

I propose this test: one of these people who recalls a past life could predict some previously unknown historical fact, that could then be shown to be true by previously unknown archaeological finds. Get the subject to make a prediction, publish it well in advance of the search, and then go off and dig and find some previously unheard of city or civilisation which substantially confirms the predictions of the person. A variation on this procedure might including getting the person to predict the discovery of the previously unknown species recorded in the fossil record, and then discover a fossil just as described. Or they might show how to read a previously undeciphered script. Something that only a person living in that time and place could know, and that is entirely unknown to us now.

The value of a scientific theory is in the predictions it makes. I would be very interested to hear about any peer-reviewed publication in which a past-life recollection told us something new about the world in the way that I've outlined.

[7 May 2014 - a thorough assessment of the methods and conclusions of another reincarnation enthusiast, Dr Ian Stevenson can be found at the Skeptics Dictionary.]

Philosophical Problems.

The basic contention of Tart et al is that empirical methods can be used to demonstrate metaphysical ideas or perhaps we should say 'abilities' such as extra-sensory perception or recollection of past lives. They are saying that such ideas are demonstrable and measurable, and therefore not really metaphysical, i.e. not beyond physics. However there is a kind of placebo effect at work: ESP is only detectable if you believe in it in the first place. Presumably this is what has gone wrong in all of the properly controlled studies which have shown absolutely no evidence in support of ESP and the like. On the other hand there is also the fact that a desire to believe has allowed charlatans to pull the wool over the eyes of the credulous in a number of cases. The best known, and funniest, of which is the Project Alpha, a hoax perpetrated by some (sleight of hand) magicians which exposed the credulity, and poor methods, of ESP researchers.

When, in 1915, Einstein proposed that gravity is better understood as the bending of space by masses, it might just have remained another novel idea if Arthur Eddington had not demonstrated in 1919 that it is indeed the case. Eddington's observations of the transit of Venus demonstrated that masses bend light, which itself has no mass, as it passes close by them. In the face of this kind of evidence, the world then accepts this new idea even though it is counter to the prevailing view and even counter-intuitive (how can something with no mass be affected by gravity?). The same thing happened with Quantum Mechanics which was not accepted without some fierce opposition lead by none other than Albert Einstein, and now underpins the technological revolution. The same thing is currently happening in cosmology as empirical evidence accumulates that the universe must contain more mass than we can see or our theories predict (dark matter), and that something is pushing galaxies away from each other (dark energy).

Sometimes paradigm changes can be theory led, sometimes observation led. However the empirical side of things is based on published observations which are then repeated by an independent third parties, who often have a vested interest in proving their rivals wrong! It is the build up of repeatable results that creates the pressure to change a world view - and let's be clear that our views of the world can and do change from time to time. The dark matter/energy observations will eventually change our understanding of the cosmos for instance. So called 'cold fusion' by contrast could not recreated in any of the labs which tried, and it soon became apparent that the announcement had been premature to say the least. ESP has being researched for 200 years without coming up with one uncontestable result, while at the same time many frauds have been exposed.

Reincarnation fans complain that if scientists would only apply empirical methods to the study of reincarnation they would see it is real. But equally if a scientist reports a negative result it is because they are too materialistic, and not open to new ideas (tell that to any astronomer or nuclear physicist of the last century and they might beg to differ). Usually an unequivocal negative result requires a scientist to abandon their theory (e.g. phlogiston, or the æther) and seek a new explanation.

There is a much greater philosophical problem with so-called memories of past-lives, and it is one that plagues all theories of rebirth/reincarnation. Such theories suggests a continuity between lives, over multiple lives, a personal continuity. This raises the question about the nature of that continuity? There must be some aspect of our being, not reliant on our physical body, which goes from life to life, collecting and preserving memories, and then later allowing our present consciousness reliable access to those memories, though apparently only during childhood. What can survive intact through multiple lives and deaths, and accurately preserve memories? I know of nothing which would meet the requirement except a soul of some kind.

Now, if science is to offer any insight into the phenomena at all, then it would be in establishing the existence of, and the mode of functioning of this soul-like phenomena which provides a medium for memory storage external to the body, and particularly the brain. They would show how and where such memories are stored. Of course they must take into account the well demonstrated role of the brain in the formation, storage and recall of memories of living humans - we can lose all of our memories and the ability to make new ones through brain injury. (I recommend Joseph LeDoux's book The Emotional Brain for a survey of the history of this field). The idea that memories survive the death of the entire brain, and surface sometime later in a person with no close genetic relationship, requires explanation. Tart et al, having invoked the scientific paradigm, must seek to explain it within that paradigm. It's up to people like Mr Tart and his colleagues and supporters to come up with the theories that can be tested, with measurements that can be made. As I understand it they do not propose mechanisms for metaphysical memories. They do not propose theories that can be tested. They merely churn out anecdote. It is not sufficient for the idea to be taken seriously to invoke the "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong" argument.

In Conclusion

I think it is only right to be sceptical towards the idea of recollection of past lives. It is a deeply problematic metaphysical belief. It will not be easy to demonstrate that life continues after the death of the individual, and as far as I know this has yet to happen. My view is that a belief in past-life recollection is more than likely linked to a deep desire for personal continuity. It's poignant, it's understandable, but it is entirely unscientific. By invoking science the meta-physicians are caught out. If the phenomena is material enough to be observed then it must either obey known laws, or we must recast those laws to account for it. But if it really is as described in faith texts, then it is not dependent on the material world and will be forever beyond the reach of empirical science. So why invoke the scientific method in the first place? I will have to leave this question hanging, but it is one I must come back to. The conflict between the ancient world views preserved in the amber of religious faith, and the modern empirical world view is on-going.

Update: 10.10.2010

Anyone interested in the way memory works will be fascinated by this story from the Guardian Newspaper: Meredith Maran: Did my father really abuse me? It is an extract from her book My Lie: A True Story of False Memory, which looks at the way one intelligent and articulate woman manufactured 'memories' of incest out of a febrile imagination, on the basis of her deep (and positive) involvement in the issue of sexual abuse, and a culture which demonised men. I don't think this in any way trivialises the issue of sexual abuse, but it does give us insights into the complexity of the mind, and memory in particular.

Thanks to my friend Vidyavajra for bringing this to my attention.

Update 24-7-11

This cartoon on Calamities of Nature is apposite. As it says: either souls interact with the world and are within the province of science; or they do not, in which case why should they concern us?

Update 7 May 2014

Sean Carroll a real scientist talks about life after death: Physics and the Immortality of the Soul; 

The Linguistic Joys of Popular Religion

As I have a prominent website dealing with Buddhist mantra, I frequently receive requests for help and advice with phrases in Sanskrit, often for tattoos. I tend not to help with tattoos, but I like to help Buddhists trying to understand what they are chanting. Recently, someone wrote asking about this phrase, suggesting that it was something the Buddha had said:

yad bhavam tad bhavati

This is clearly Sanskrit, a simple relative clause sentence (yad 'what, which'; tad 'that, this'). There is some possible ambiguity because of the lack of diacritics - is it bhavam or bhāvam? The former means 'becoming, being'; the latter 'being, origin'. However, there is some crossover - both can mean 'becoming, existence'. I think bhava is a primary derivation from the root bhū, and bhāva is a secondary derivative (of, or connected to, bhava). Either way, the sentence appears to be a tautology:

'what becomes, that is becoming' or 'what is, is'.

One interpretation might be that bhavam is intended in its special meaning of 'truth' - 'that which is true, that is'. This relies on the double meaning of satya 'true, real'; if something exists then it is both true and real. Now compare this with what it is said to mean on the internet. We begin with an article in the Huffington Post by Stacey Lawson, which is where my correspondent found the phrase:

There is a famous yogic teaching: "Yad Bhavam Tad Bhavati." The most literal translation is: "You become as you think." But the Sanskrit language has many layers of meaning. It can also be interpreted as, "The state of mind and the state of matter are one," or "The light of the mind coalesces as matter." Through delving into this single statement, the yogis were able to apprehend the entire structure of creation through the mind.

I'm already puzzled because of the capitalisation. People do this with mantras as well. You'll often see a mantra like 'oṃ maṇipadme hūṃ' written 'Oṃ Maṇi Padme Hūṃ'. What does capitalisation indicate in this case? Scholars will often use italics for foreign words, which helps the reader take in the difference, but how does this capitalisation help? I think one need only look in the King James Bible to see why we do this:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1.1

We Buddhists do this as well. We capitalise words live nirvāṇa, enlightenment, buddha, to mark them as special, perhaps we might say 'sacred' (though I wouldn't) on the model of a 17th century English Bible, and in defiance of contemporary English conventions. This doesn't occur in Indic scripts since they lack capitals, and all words and letters are special anyway. I think it suggests an inferiority complex when we have to make sure everyone knows our jargon is 'special'.

What do people mean when they say things like, "But the Sanskrit language has many layers of meaning"? Is Sanskrit any more layered than other languages? No it isn't. But vague statements in a spiritual context lend themselves to meaning whatever you want them to mean. We supply the specifics depending on what we want to believe. In effect, the statement can mean almost anything we want it to. So the phrase gets translated as:

You become as you think
as you think so you become
It will transform as you wish
your feelings define your world
as is the feeling, so is the result
as is the feeling, so is the experience
what you intend, that becomes reality
The light of the mind coalesces as matter
The state of mind and the state of matter are one
what you choose to believe becomes your personal truth
Whatever you have in mind will be reflected back to you as a reality

Clearly, many of these statements are not logically connected to each other, or meaningful in any ordinary sense, and none of them seem to derive from the actual Sanskrit words. Which is more or less the same as saying that the Sanskrit phrase can mean anything you want it to (especially if you don't know Sanskrit!). This is a form of linguistic relativism, which presumably goes nicely with the "all is one" style of popular religion. But vagueness in language usually disguises vagueness of thought. As one website translates the phrase: "what you choose to believe becomes your personal truth." Quite. The sad fact is that people simply believe what they want to believe despite what intellect and experience tell them; and that, very often, what we affirm as true, or True, is merely what we believe, merely our opinion. It's like a belief in a creator god: it's just an opinion.

Although my interlocutor thought this was a Buddhist saying, it clearly isn't. Though compare this fake Buddha quote:

“The mind is everything. What you think you become.” Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)

Apart from a spelling mistake and dubious dates, the thing that stands out for me is that the Buddha is described as a Hindu! It may be that the first sentence in this quote is a garbled version of the Pāli verses which begin the Dhammapada, but the phrasing is quite different.

mano pubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā.
Mind precedes experience, mind is foremost, [experience is] mind-made.

And, in any case, this is an ethical teaching, not an ontological one - it is about how your mental state determines the outcomes of your actions. I've also seen a website where our phrase is associated with Tibetan Buddhism, though the artist/author also says that the statement: "is a truth that transcends religion" . The phrase - yad bhavam, tad bhavati - may simply be a fake Buddha quote. Bodhipakṣa, of Wildmind fame. has been collecting fake Buddha quotes for a while now if anyone is interested in this phenomenon.

Elsewhere, I have seen the phrase attributed to 'the Upaniṣads' and 'The Bhagavadgīta', but not convincingly. The context of the Sanskrit phrase (as opposed to the various translations) always seems to be Hindu, and mostly associated with Sathya Sai Baba, the controversial South Indian 'holy man', not to be confused with Sai Baba of Shirdi (the 19th century saint). Many of the web hits point to a discourse called God is the Indweller, where it is spelt it a little differently:

Yad Bhavam Tad Bhavathi
As you think so you become.

Here bhavati, has become bhavathi, and I'm unsure about what it could be except a spelling mistake. Though he also spells satya as sathya, so it could be a matter of idiosyncratic rather than mistaken spelling. Although the phrase comes in a talk peppered with Sanskrit quotes and translations for which textual sources are cited, no source is given for this particular phrase. He does, however, mention the story of Prahlada (a character from the Puraṇas) and one translation I found suggested that our phrase in the form - "Yad Bhavam tad Bhavati (Whatever you have in mind will be reflected back to you as a reality)" [sic!] - might occur in this connection. I couldn't find any confirmation of this, however.

After a bit of playing around with the Devanāgarī I did find one quote in the form "यद्‌भावम्‌ तद्‌भवती" (i.e., yad bhāvam tad bhavatī) where bhavatī is a spelling mistake for bhavati. Technically, in Sanskrit you'd probably write this यद्भवम्तद्भवति with sandhi and conjuncts obscuring the word breaks. But this did not shed any light on the origins of the phrase.

An email on the subject from Sanskritist Kiran Paranjape, who I often refer people to for tattoo transcriptions, makes me wonder whether Sai Baba hasn't just done a Sanskrit translation of the Spanish/Italian phrase "Que sera, sera" - "What will be, will be." The Sanskrit would be according to Kiran: yad bhāvyam tad bhavati, which is very close to our phrase. I would have gone for something like: 'yad yad bhāvyam tad tad bhaviṣyati', though it lacks the brevity of the original; or perhaps 'yad bhāvyam, bhāvyam' which captures the form but, like the original, is not fully grammatical.

Another possibility is that 'you become what you think' is an example of the so-called Law of Attraction - a form of magical thinking popular in Theosophical circles, and amongst New Age gurus like Deepak Chopra. It forms the basis of the book: Think and Grow Rich. It may be that the phrase has also been picked up on by Sai Baba. It sounds vaguely similar to Hindu religious ideas, so fits in with his rhetoric.

After quite a lot of searching around, I did not find any traditional Indian source - Vedas, major Upaniṣads, Epics and Puraṇas; in either Roman or Devanāgarī. Perhaps I have missed something, but it doesn't seem to be obvious. I should add that the whole thing is redolent of Hindu spirituality, and may well be genuine - the fact that I can't find it may be a failing on my part. The phrase is widely quoted across the internet, and attributed to a range of people or texts. On the face of it, however, the words are a bit of meaningless cant that 'spiritual' people project their ideas onto, the linguistic equivalent of crystals.

I suppose this is how legends get started. Someone, for whatever reason, attributes some saying to the Buddha. Later generations take it seriously, but not finding a source for it, must create a plausible context for the fake quote. So we get drift from the words of the master towards the words of fakers (who may have been well intentioned, I'm not suggesting they are necessarily evil). Sometimes it is very difficult to tell the difference, especially if we aren't familiar with a wide range of sources. This is one of the most valuable functions of scholars: to take cant like this and explain why it is inauthentic, to slow the drift towards mumbo-jumbo.