|
|
|
|
Updated March 20, 1999
REINCARNATION OR BIOFIELD TRANSFER?
Savely Savva
Studies of children claiming memories of deceased individuals have been conducted for the last 30 years. The most recent article by Satwant K. Pasricha "Cases of the Reincarnation Type in Northern India with Birthmarks and Birth Defects"1 provides an essential bibliography of the subject (we reproduce it for those interested2). Also, it presents photographs of birthmarks and birth defects of 15 children that correspond to wounds and injuries of the deceased as described in post mortem medical reports.
Usually those children identify themselves with a deceased as soon as they start speaking. They call themselves by the name of the deceased, tell about and on occasion recognize members of the family of the deceased, describe many intimate details of their previous lives and circumstances of their death. The parents of those children may or may not have known the deceased and their families. The time gap between the birth of a child and the passing of the "predecessor" may vary from a few days to a few years.
The body of information presented in this latest article and in the literature looks highly credible and convincing. A number of specially designed studies rule out mere chance, intentional or unintentional transfer of information through the families, maternal impression, or the children's urge to make up stories. This leads many investigators to the hypothesis of reincarnation. Pasricha writes: "The reincarnation hypothesis offers a different, and perhaps better, perspective in understanding congenital marks and defects along with cognitive and behavioral features."1 This interpretation of the phenomenon in my view is debatable.
In accordance with my concept of the General Biofield Control System of organisms discussed elsewhere3 I suggest that the described phenomenon represents a partial transfer of the biofield -- the epiphenomenon of the genome. Comparing the genomes of the children and those deceased with whom they identify themselves can reveal elements of the human genome that are responsible for storing developmental and behavioral programs.
THE CONCEPT OF REINCARNATION
The concept of reincarnation comes from ancient Brahmanism. A version of this concept I remember reading in Russian theosophical literature states that there are seven planes of a living being: physical, astral, two mental planes, two higher mutually complementary levels and the top, absolute plane - the Atman. Physical and etheric bodies reside at the physical plane. The death of a being starts with the decomposition of the physical and then the etheric body. The latter is the organization of the circulating vital energy - prana. The astral (emotional) body fragments on the astral plane. The mental body carrying the memory fragments at the first mental level. The rest of the mental body remains intact at the second mental plane and so do the other higher bodies at the respective higher planes. The way back may occur in up to a thousand years by the descent of the soul to the lower planes and the acquisition of fragments of memories, emotions, and prana and finally, settling in a child aged 5-7. This concept does not contradict experience of the majority of people: no memory is preserved, no emotional connection to past lives. Thus, this renders a perfect model to believe in, unchallengeable and yet calming.
Professor I. Stevenson, one of the founders and the main contributor to the study of memory transfer phenomenon recently published a review of a book on the history of the reincarnation concept.4 I did not read the book and do not claim any expertise in this field, but as any religious concept the concept of reincarnation must be untestable and must not contradict the common experience. It seems that the word reincarnation, if not defined differently, does not bring much clarity to the most interesting subject studied and should not be used as an explanatory concept.
BIOFIELD AND GENERAL BIOFIELD CONTROL SYSTEM
The AUM mantra of the Indian tradition is "said to represent the deities of the trimurti, where A symbolizes Brahma and creation, U is Vishnu and maintenance, and M is Shiva, identifying destruction."5 As opposed to inanimate matter, all living systems perform not only these three fundamental programs of existence but four, the fourth being reproduction. In my previous article3 I identified these programs as development, maintenance, reproduction and death. All of them have two aspects: physiological and behavioral. The latter utilizes sensory and extrasensory systems to acquire information from the environment, and the mind including memory and consciousness - for making decisions on the interactions with the environment.
It would be naive to assume that the decision-making is specifically a brain's prerogative. All creatures have been performing the four above-mentioned programs since the inception of life, long before the nervous system and the brain emerged in biological evolution. Thus the brain or the nervous system could not possibly carry the coordinating function of the organisms' life. Even the most complex human-made automata and organizations, that are incomparably simpler than a single-cell organism, have hierarchical control systems. So, what do we know about the general control system (GCS) of organisms? Not much. We know that GCS must coordinate performance of the four basic programs where only the maintenance program includes food (energy) acquisition and assimilation, breathing, thermostabilization (in higher organisms), evacuation of waste, immunity, internal energy distribution, evasion of threat, and many more. We also know that many control subsystems use different carriers of information and, accordingly, different principles of signal emitters and sensors: the nervous system transmits electrical spikes, the humoral systems circulates chemical molecules. The role of the recently discovered electromagnetic coherence of cells in organs and tissues6 is still unknown, yet electromagnetic field is a separate carrier of controlling information. Also unknown is the carrier of information through acupuncture meridians (Qi in Chinese tradition) and so are carriers of memory in memory-transfer phenomena observed and well-reported in numerous parapsychological studies.7 It is clear that GCS must have a common language with all control subsystems of the organism. General control system is the essence and the main function of the biofield or bioinformation field.
Biologists discussed various concepts of biofield from a developmental perspective for more than a century. A comprehensive review on the history of field theories in biology by Marco Bischof is presented in this issue (his original publication8 contains 105 references). As he writes in the introduction to his article, "Today's biology, dominated by the molecular approach developed since about 1940, is suffocated by an immense amount of experimental data on molecular aspects of biological functions which present an extremely fragmented view of the living state. The very success of this approach is now becoming biology's greatest enemy. ... There is neither a conceptual framework to unify the findings into a theory of biology, nor even one to guide further research."
It is very much possible that the biofield transfer plays a fundamental role in mutagenesis and in the whole biological evolution. Lamark's9 observations of directed adaptive evolution, of sea birds and giraffes for instance, are much more compelling than the Darvinian strictly random mutagenesis. The tremendous amount of mutants possessing vital capacity that would emerge during the time of giraffes' and birds' gradual evolution would obliterate the species many times over, if mutations were random. Lamark's explanation of the elongation of the giraffe's neck or the sea bird's legs, due to active blood supply to the organs in intense use is certainly unacceptable today. Features acquired during a lifetime cannot directly influence mutations, however, the obviously directional evolutionary process in Lamark's examples indicate that there should be a mechanism for this. This mechanism may work through the biofield, i.e. the biofield may cause advantegeous genetic mutations. In the 1950's, when genetic analysis was not available and before the biochemical paradigm obscured the concept of biofield, biologists might only hint at such a possibility ( see reference to Curt Stern [1954] in the Commentary by J. Opitz and S. Gilbert - partially reproduced in this issue - to L. Beloussov's article10 ). However, the function of the biofield seems to be much broader than embryogenesis. There must be an interim link between the genome - the "library" of the accumulated knowledge - and the physiological and behavioral realization of this knowledge. As an example let's consider a "simple" species-specific behavioral act such as escaping a threat. The time is often measured in milliseconds during which an animal must choose the direction where to escape, mobilize all the energy available and necessary for fast motion, and move maintaining balance and orientation. It is not just a "conditional reflex," it is a most complex inborn, genetically-determined program that could not possibly be fulfilled by chemically reading the genes from DNA through RNA, proteins, enzymes, etc. The fact that the understanding and the physical description of biofields may take another couple of centuries should not prevent phenomenological study of the phenomena. Considering how little we currently know about this, I cannot see why the transfer of the biofield from one individual to another through time and space is impossible.
WHAT CAN BE LEARNED BY STUDYING THIS PHENOMENON
If the phenomenon in question is indeed the transfer of biofield and if the biofield is the epiphenomenon of the genome, then finding a genetic commonness in a child and the deceased person with whom the child claims identity could shed light on the genetic carriers of behavioral and developmental programs , and on the biofield itself. As in the identification of a gene or a group of genes associated with genetic diseases like Alzheimer's, myopathias, cancers, etc., the genetic carriers of the developmental program may be found by comparing the genetic material of the pairs in question with that of their relatives, if the genetic material of the deceased is available (probably not in India where the corpse are traditionally burned). In the early days of parapsychology (1870's - 1950's), when British scientists established the Society for Psychical Research, the brightest minds of the time - physicists, biologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists - studied memory transfers as demonstrated by most gifted mediums.7 They were open-minded and wise enough to describe their observations without speculating on the physical bases of the phenomenon. Such transfer of memory or knowledge clearly does not involve the genetic material but it shows the very peculiar property of the memory and information transfer processes. However, in the case of children, the biofield transfer apparently occurs during the embryonic development of a child and it is reasonable to assume that it may influence genetic mutations. The birthmarks and especially the birth defects described by Pasricha may reflect such genetic changes.
REFERENCES
1. Pasricha, S. K. Cases of Reincarnation Type in Northern India with Birthmarks and Birth Defects. JSE V.12, #2, 1998, pp.259-293
2. Cook, E.W., Pasricha, S., Samararatne, G., Win Maung, and Stevenson, I. (1983). A review and analysis of "unsolved" cases of the reincarnation type. II. Comparison of features of solved and unsolved cases. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 77, 115.
Haraldsson, E. (1991). Children claiming past life memories: Four cases in Sri Lanka. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 5, 2, 233.
Mills, A; Haraldsson, E; and Keil, H.H.J. (1994). Replication studies of cases suggestive of reincarnation by three independent investigators. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 88, 207.
Pasricha, S. (1990). Claims of Reincarnation: An Empirical Study of Cases in India. New Delhi: Harman Publishing House. Stevenson, I. (1974). Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. 2nd rev. ed. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
Stevenson, I. (1992). A new look at maternal impressions: An analysis of 50 published cases and reports of two recent examples. JSE, 6, 4, 353.
Stevenson, I. (1993) Birthmarks and birth defects corresponding to wounds on deceased persons. JSE, 7, 3,403. Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmark and Birth Defects. 2 vols. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Stevenson, I., Pasricha, S., and Samararatne, G. (1988). Deception and self-deception in cases of the reincarnation type: Seven illustrative cases in Asia. Journal of the American Society, for Psychical Research, 82, 1,
3. Savva, S. L. Systems Approach in Biology and Biophysics. MISAHA Newsletter #18-19, 1998, pp.2-9. See also S. Savva. Toward a Cybernetic Model on the Organism. ADVANCES of Mind Body Medicine. V.14, #4, 1998, pp.292-301
4. Stevenson, I Review of the book "Die Idee der Reinkarnation in Ost und West" , Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Editor (1996) in JSE V.12, #3, 1998, p.494
5. Jordan, M. Eastern Wisdom: the Philosophies and Rituals of the East, Marlowe & Company, NY, 1997, p.93
6. Chang, J. J., J. Fisch and F-A Popp, editors. Biophotons. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrech-Boston-London, 1998, 410p.
7. Roy, A. The Challenge of Psychical Research (Presidential Address 1994) and Fontana, D. Psychical Research and the Millennium: New Light on the Nature of Man (Presidential Address 1997). both in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research. V.58, Part 219, Oct.1998, pages 105 and 125 respectively
8. Bischof, M. Holism and Field theories in Biology, in Chang, J. J.,J. Fisch and F-A Popp, editors. Biophotons. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrech-Boston-London, 1998, pp.375-394
9. Lamarck, J-B.P. Zoological Philosophy: an Exposition with Regard to the Natural History of Animals. (1809 first edition), Hafner Pub.Co., NY, 1963, 410p.
10. Beloussov, L Life of Alexander G. Gurwitsch and his Relevant Contribution to the Theory of Morphogenic Fields. Int. J. Dev. Biol. V.41, 1997, pp. 771-779
Home
Mail donation and/or subscription to:
   |
