HAVE WE LIVED BEFORE?

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 February 1930, Page 12

HAVE WE LIVED BEFORE?

FAMOUS SCIENTIST’S VIEWS. Among those who accept as a fact the persistence of the human spirit after bodily death there is sometimes a debate between two alternatives; for the question arises whether that existence is continuous, in some state or condition apart from matter, or whether it is subject to occasional discontinuities, such as would be involved in reassociation with matter by the construction of another and yet another material body (writes Sir Oliver Lodge in the “Daily Mail”). . I am acquainted with plenty of evidence in favour of persistent existence, and even temporary utilisation of other ‘organisms, but I am not acquainted with any real evidence in favour of what may be called full-blown reincarnation;. though I know that in some form a belief in the truth of this, and even a felt consciousness of it, is prevalent among the group of people known as Theosophists, who possibly have acquired some evidence unknown to me derived from Indian experience or meditation. The position of myself and of many of the psychic investigators in this country is at present that incarnation, or association ■with matter, has for its object the development of individual (character or personality by. a. material-., ising process applied to some- entity which, though in a vague way existing previously, did not exist in that specific form. . . Encasement in matter, which is es sentially more discontinuous than space, has the effect of isolating a portion —a gradually increasing portion—of a general psychic reality; so as to screen that portion from surrounding influences, except those to which it can gain access through its specially adapted and limited sense organs. ' During its incarnation, therefore, the mind primarily apprehends only matter—matter subject to and displaying the various forms of energy—and can thus concentrate on a comparatively undistracted mundane existence for a short period. , The episode of earth life thus leads to an accumulation of experience, the memory of which persists, and it is difficult to see what gam there would be in interrupting the continuity _ ol this memory by once more plunging the personality into a subsequent incarnation. It ‘would seem to lead only to confusion. The brain is an ' ing or screening organ, in which habits may be stored, but not true memory. Memory has shown itself to be a mental process, a deposit in the mind, which demonstrably survives e brain; and upon the mind, presumably, our individual reactions or be haviour depends, as something separate from mere racial habits and instincts. Memory and character thus developed constitute the individual. Assuming (as we well may) that earthly existence in association with matter is of value in the age-long process of evolution, it may be surmised that in the case of frustrated incarnation, like that of still-born children, for instance, a second chance may be permitted. I do not know. But for any fully developed individual no second chance seems necessary or de sirable. - , It has been suggested, however, by Myers and others that we are none ot us fullv and completely incarnate here and now; that in fact our present manifestation is a portion of a lai ger subliminal self, a self beneath the threshold of consciousness, which only surges up occasionally in genius and other exceptional manifestations, but which is a considerable storehouse of knowledge. And it has been thought that some other portions of this larger self may hereafter become incarnate; so that a complete self shall ultimately emerge and survive as a group or composite of many experiences and memories, each fraction contributing an element ot value to the whole. A frustrated or truncated incarnation would then only affect a small portion of the whole composite self, so that if full terrestrial experience were denied to this small portion, the deprivation would not be of such great importance. The whole larger self would presumably be the really persistent and growing or evolving entity; though the individuality laboriously grown in each separate portion would certainly bo ie tained, and would contribute its quota qf personal experience and memory to the whole. Moreover, it might often feel a strange, inexplicable sympathy with other portions of the larger sell to which it belonged. ' . This doctrine I venture to think may be some approximation to the truth. But it is not a subject on which anyone has a right to dogmatise. The busiiiess of those who study psychic sub jects is gradually to accumulate more evidence, in the hope of ultimately being able to formulate a reasonable working hypothesis, and so lead gradually to a theory consistent with all the facts.