Is this proof of reincarnation?

Question

http://www.tharpa.com/background/proof-of-reincarnation.htm

Answer 1

No. It is not proof of reincarnation. The differences between children raised together does not, necessarily, stem from experiences from a previous a life.

Just as certain mental disorders can be hereditary, so too, can dispositions be inherited. There is a high probability that genetic influence from previous generations can appear in the bloodline of a current generation.

There are documentaries that claim to prove the theory of reincarnation with individuals who know certain facts only the deceased and their loved ones would know; but then again, it could be a classic case of spiritual possession.

Answer 2

"How can we explain these differences? [[[between identical twins in the same putative environment]]] A mental tendency is a habit of mind, and habits are created by repeated actions over a long period of time.

The fact that children are born with varying mental tendencies indicates that at some time prior to their birth - that is, in a previous life - they performed different actions, creating different mental habits."

1) Appeal to Ignorance. False Cause.
2) Doesn't relate at ALL to psycho-analysis, any behaviorist or Chomsky, who've explained this disparity sufficiently.

There are no identical environments. Children learn and are affected at an accelerated rate.

Later the website says it's MOST natural to think a person with a proclivity for religion oor language developed it FIRST in past lifetimes. That is, someone who learns French easily whereas an intellectually equal (-.-) comrade does not, indicates past life learning. If that were so, then polyglots would have horrible times with some languages and not others. Which isn't the case. Or they couldn't learn a language that was recently invented, such as Klingon or C++.

The MOST NATURAL way to see disparity of learning or character are people in their environment on this earth. There's NO need to translate it back into past lives. Which are completely unknown, unseen, and therefore only a far-fetched inference and unproveable.

The "proof" later calls upon the evidentiary basis for the sciences of biology, archaeology and the like.

Which is a BAD ANALOGY.
The evidence here points no more to past lives then fossils do to the hand of God.

Answer 3

The article was very interesting, but can there ever be proof? I often wonder if when people have a "deja vu", if it is just something from a previous life. I have met people and sense if they are an old soul or a young soul. What about the child that can play a violin like a Master at the age of 3? He definitely had to have lived before. But, if reincarnation is real, then it would be kind of like recycling souls and I would rather think that there are endless souls.

Answer 4

It's an indication of reincarnation but not proof. Life itself is the evidence of reincarnation. Everyone consciously or unconsciously is aware that he or she has been alive in previous times and places, but most people follow the herd and turn away from the truth inside themselves.

In the words of Walt Whitman: "I know I am deathless. No doubt I have died myself ten thousand times before. I laugh at what you call dissolution, and I know the amplitude of time."

Answer 5

Interesting but not absolute proof. I do believe in reincarnation and have participated in post life regression therapy. If your interested in this kind of thing you should try it.

Answer 6

Very fascinating link, Thank you.
But even the Buddha was against taking something on faith. He taught that the truth or dharma is within.
So search inside how you experience what was presented, those words are only a finger pointing in the direction of ultimate truth, within yourself.

Answer 7

No. It is not proof. Even as a practicing Buddhist, it is not necessarily proof. It is only one theory.

Answer 8

You're here, aren't you?

Is it really any harder to believe in reincarnation than it is to believe that we got here "this time"?

Answer 9

i think it's more of a theory, rather than being proof. this theory can also be a theory for karma

Answer 10

There can be no proof. Thanks for the link.