Do you believe in Reincarnation?

[SioDenz]

---

John 9
1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.
2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"


That was, and still is, a very good question.
Because we can not answer it straight using or Christian concept.
In reincarnation concept, that would have been easy to answer.

The man was blind because it is his consequence to be blind in this life.
Because he abused his eyes in the previous life.
Sige siguro siyag pamuso sa iyang silingan. hehehe.

In reincarnation concept,
whatever aspect of your self
that you abuse in this life
will be taken away from you
in the next life.

Wa man nimu tiwasa an verse bro, gitubag man to ni Jesus.
Abi kay di man ka ganahan sa tubag mu conclude dayun ka nga "can not answer it straight using or Christian concept"...faet...

naa ra an verse o:

John 9:
1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

[carmicael]

Mr. Professor, I am not the only one who said that reincarnation is a scientific fact. Why get defensive? I just based primarily my argument from the well known research of Dr. Ian Stevenson and others. And by the way, mr. professor, I am not sharing this MISINFORMATION to the readers. I am simply presenting the results of Dr. Ian Stevenson and others that reincarnation and NDE'S are valid for scientific research.

to put it simply sir, some people saying that it is a scientific fact, does not make it a scientific fact. to put it to your terms, it means that what some say, is not what always is. plain, hard, and simple. do scientific communities in educational institutions approve this? can you please answer that sir?

Are you trying to exaggerate your blah, blah is a faggot, professor? Are you really serious about this stuff? You make me REALLY laugh, professor!!!

haha. am i really trying to exaggerate? or are those words hitting you hard, sir?

What is wrong by showing you the research and studies of other people about reincarnation? Don't they have scientific basis? Are they stupid when they made those studies?

nothing's wrong in showing other's research. but to place it as a fact, in lieu of an official investigation, or in lieu of an official acceptance, that is one great mistake, sir.

C'mon professor, you make me laugh. Don't tell me you are more brilliant compared to them!

haha. did i imply that i am such sir?

Well, I am proud of your reasoning too only that you are just too narrow in your approach.

narrow? haha. so your theory on "thoughts being energy" is broad? it is just a theory, in its infancy stages and cannot be proven as a scientific fact. think much about high school physics sir, energy is a SCALAR PHYSICAL QUANTITY. just to name one of the many anomalies in the above mentioned "30 year research".

I wouldn't say you are a close minded professor because you are not against some people's belief in reincarnation. Maybe you are even aware professor that most religions believe in reincarnation, am I right?

some religions believe in reincarnation. i have never made count, and cannot conclude that most religions believe so.

So, what are these thoughts or consciousness made of?

thought and thinking are mental forms and processes, respectively ("thought" is both.) thinking allows beings to model the world and to deal with it effectively according to their objectives, plans, ends and desires. is there "energy" in thought?

in creating thoughts, we use energy for the mental processes, but energy used is not transformed into thoughts, rather, it is consumed by the organs used in creating these thoughts.

there may be studies and researches, but they remain as they are and are not established as final.

As it has been said "Energy can never be created nor be destroyed." Can you destroy consciosusness? Is conscousness not the building blocks of matter?

hahahahahahahahahahah!!! CONCIOUSNESS ARE BUILDING BLOCKS OF MATTER?? where did you get that sir? metaphysics? oh, yeah, i recall that subject. i got reprimanded for cheating in the exam. I LOOKED INTO THE SOUL OF THE PERSON NEXT TO ME. LOL.

Are you aware that Consciousness determines our vibration? The PSYCHODYNAMICS of the MIND as an electromagnetic structure establishes the nature and reality of consciousness as an interdimensional energy process. It is an electrical procees of CAUSE and EFFECT! Are you aware of this mr. professor? It has been said that ENERGY FOLLOWS THOUGHT that THOUGHTS ARE THINGS!

it has been SAID, but NOT ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. these concepts are from Esotericism, not SCIENCE.

I think you have to study QUANTUM PHYSICS professor! I think you are still in the old school relying on Newton's physics.

do you even know what quantum physics is about sir? yes, there are theories of "quantum minds" by quantum physicists, but hey, it is not accepted by the majority and is still in its THEORY phase. not SCIENTIFIC LAW. and this is far from concluding reincarnation as a science.

Read the works of Dr. John Hagelin about consciousness too! You might want to watch this video from Dr. John Hagelin, a distinguished physicist.

again, "THEORIES" not "LAWS".

unless these are proven to be LAWS, and can be QUANTIFIED, these are merely theories and cannot be considered as scientific facts.

reincarnation is a great theory, but a theory nonetheless.

[regnauld]

to put it simply sir, some people saying that it is a scientific fact, does not make it a scientific fact. to put it to your terms, it means that what some say, is not what always is. plain, hard, and simple. do scientific communities in educational institutions approve this? can you please answer that sir?


haha. am i really trying to exaggerate? or are those words hitting you hard, sir?


nothing's wrong in showing other's research. but to place it as a fact, in lieu of an official investigation, or in lieu of an official acceptance, that is one great mistake, sir.


haha. did i imply that i am such sir?


narrow? haha. so your theory on "thoughts being energy" is broad? it is just a theory, in its infancy stages and cannot be proven as a scientific fact. think much about high school physics sir, energy is a SCALAR PHYSICAL QUANTITY. just to name one of the many anomalies in the above mentioned "30 year research".


some religions believe in reincarnation. i have never made count, and cannot conclude that most religions believe so.


thought and thinking are mental forms and processes, respectively ("thought" is both.) thinking allows beings to model the world and to deal with it effectively according to their objectives, plans, ends and desires. is there "energy" in thought?

in creating thoughts, we use energy for the mental processes, but energy used is not transformed into thoughts, rather, it is consumed by the organs used in creating these thoughts.

there may be studies and researches, but they remain as they are and are not established as final.


hahahahahahahahahahah!!! CONCIOUSNESS ARE BUILDING BLOCKS OF MATTER?? where did you get that sir? metaphysics? oh, yeah, i recall that subject. i got reprimanded for cheating in the exam. I LOOKED INTO THE SOUL OF THE PERSON NEXT TO ME. LOL.


it has been SAID, but NOT ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. these concepts are from Esotericism, not SCIENCE.


do you even know what quantum physics is about sir? yes, there are theories of "quantum minds" by quantum physicists, but hey, it is not accepted by the majority and is still in its THEORY phase. not SCIENTIFIC LAW. and this is far from concluding reincarnation as a science.


again, "THEORIES" not "LAWS".

unless these are proven to be LAWS, and can be QUANTIFIED, these are merely theories and cannot be considered as scientific facts.

reincarnation is a great theory, but a theory nonetheless.

What a brilliant professor! I thought you said reincarnation is not a valid scientific study. Are you aware that the scientific community focuses on material science? THE FACT that YOU CANNOT DISPROVE REINCARNATION, demonstrates that these studies of Dr. Ian Stevenson and others are PROOF that REINCARNATION IS TRUE! Where is your logic here professor!

EVERYTHING STARTS WITH CONSCIOUSNESS! That Consciousness is the ground of all being said the Physicist, Amit Goswami, Ph.D. Your old school of thought has been refuted already by Quantum PHYSICS professor! Have you really watched the findings of Dr. Hagelin? Maybe you are just pretending that you watched Dr. Hagelin explained about consciousness! Are you a physics major professor or a bible scholar?

What are these mental processes made of professor? Isn't the brain just the instrument of the mind? Which is more mysterious the mind or the brain? Can the brain function without the mind? Can you see your mind? Now, can you deny that you don't have a mind because you cannot see one? Well, I understand that you are a materialist scientist professor just like Richard Dawkins who denied that there was no GOD!

I challenge you professor to refute this:that everything starts with consciousness with all your resources. And if you can refute this, I will discard reincarnation as valid for scientific study!

[regnauld]

Aside from Dr. Ian Stevenson, another study from Peter John Ramster had documented cases about past life.

Believe It or NOT!

YouTube - Reincarnation-Regression (banned video) 1/11

Peter John Ramster apparently has made more films than written books: see the Worldcat listing of his works. His other book appears to be The Truth about Reincarnation from 1980, which was published by Rigby, Ltd, Adelaide, South Australia, a general publishing company that published from the early 1900s through at least the 1980s (see for example). The blurb of the The Truth about Reincarnation (1980) says:

The astounding story of how psychologist Peter Ramster discovered that many of his patients could actually remember their past lives. While he was using hypnotherapy to help a patient with her problems, she suddenly spoke to him as a woman from another age Under trance, she told him that she had lived in California during the period of the American War of Independence. Having made this startling discovery. Peter Ramster researched further He soon found that all persons capable of deep trance could recall having lived at different times in some cases thousands of years ago and in different countries. In this book, giving genuine case-histories and transcripts from tape-recorded conversations, he tells the whole amazing story.

The blurb of The Search for Lives Past (1992) says:

In my efforts to discover the truth about reincarnation, I concentrated my research on the unconscious psyche of the subjects. First, I tried to remove all unconscious blocks, fears, repression and neuroses which might either hamper recall or create fantasy. The next step was to make the subject recall and ability he or she might have had during a previous existence, the ability to speak or write a different language, or some artistic talent which could not possibly have been learned in this life. All the while my main aim was to ascertain the truth.

I think that his first work is a reliable source insofar as it is published by a reputable publishing company in Australia. The first work also lends credence to the reliability of the second work. But perhaps these are not sufficient for sources for WP. The Victor Zammit link purports to be a summary of Ramster's work from several sources:

The following information is taken from Peter Ramster's very important book, In Search of Lives Past (1990) and from a speech he gave to the Australian Hypnotherapists ninth National Convention at the Sydney Sheraton Wentworth Hotel on the 27th March, 1994 and from the films he made on reincarnation. In 1983 he produced a stunning television documentary in which four women from Sydney, who had never been out of Australia, gave details under hypnosis of their past lives. Then, accompanied by television cameras and independent witnesses, they were taken to the other side of the world....

One could cite the original Ramster sources, using Zammit as providing a summary of that work, since the original material is not readily available. Again, that might not be adequate for WP. One can certainly order the two books via used book sellers. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I have found interesting references to Ramsters work on youyube, but I'm unsure about wikipedia policy on references from there? Ian Lawton cites Ramsters work from "The Search For Lives Past" in his "The little book of the soul". Lawton reads himself in a series of youtube videos. Part 8, 9A & 9B is about Ramster's cases. YouTube - The Little Book of the Soul PART 8 YouTube - The Little Book of the Soul PART 9A YouTube - The Little Book of the Soul PART 9B Ramster's TV documentary from 1983 covering the same cases is also on youtube in 11 parts - #1 is here, YouTube - Reincarnation-Regression (banned video) 1/11 you can follow youtube's lead for the rest. Most interesting. Hepcat65 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Further references: to Peter Ramster's films on reincarnation:

• Peter Ramster and Brian Morris,Reincarnation, Sydney: Soundsense films (1982). OCLC 64353767.
• Peter Ramster, God doesn't play dice, Los Angeles, CA: Hemdale Home Video, Inc. (1991). OCLC 43043701. (I am presuming this is a film about reincarnation.)
• Peter Ramster, Life Death & Rebirth - A Film, no date given, listed on his web site:

A film about reincarnation and life after death - including case histories of children who prove their past life recollections and adults cured of lifelong afflictions through past life recall under hypnosis or who have had evidential near death experiences.

• Peter Ramster and Robert MacGregor, The Reincarnation Experiments, TV broadcast August 15, 2000. The description given on a University of Wollongong web page:

Two members of the University of Wollongong community have collaborated in the production of a documentary to be screened by Prime -TV on Tuesday 15 August. The film- 'The Reincarnation Experiments', documents the work of Peter Ramster, a practising psychologist of 30 years, who is studying immunology at UOW, while Information Systems senior Lecturer Robert MacGregor, has written the films soundtrack. 'The Reincarnation Experiments' focuses on the use of hypnosis by Peter Ramster to treat patients suffering psychological problems- in particular phobias and how, when hypnotised, some patients are able to provide detailed accounts of past lives.
"While treating patients I use hypnosis to take them back to their childhood in an attempt to identify the source of their individual problem or phobia, but I found some people spontaneously start talking about past lives", Mr Ramster said. Mr Ramster said since he began seriously examining the phenomena in the mid 70s he has had over 1,000 patients describe past lives to him while under hypnosis.
In an attempt "to extricate the memory’s fantasy from fact", Mr Ramster has hypnotised patients repeatedly over several years at intervals of six months, so as to correlate the information given and determine which specific facts remain consistent through time. "Boring people to tears over long periods of time", is how Mr Ramster describes his method of hypnosis.

After having viewed the documentary of Ramster's work from 1983 (on YouTube), I think the books and films are sufficiently reliable sources to document the essential features of Ramster's work. I think critical commentary that is directed generally to reincarnation regression or specifically toward Ramster's work also needs to be included. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:13, 14 July

[carmicael]

What a brilliant professor! I thought you said reincarnation is not a valid scientific study.

i never did say that taking up the study is invalid. i have always remained firm that: REINCARNATION IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS A SCIENTIFIC FACT BY MAJOR AND REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES.

Are you aware that the scientific community focuses on material science?

haha, so why waste your time proving something to be "scientifically true", when the community itself does not waste its time on it.

THE FACT that YOU CANNOT DISPROVE REINCARNATION, demonstrates that these studies of Dr. Ian Stevenson and others are PROOF that REINCARNATION IS TRUE! Where is your logic here professor!

HAHAHAHAHA. this shows your ignorance sir. this logically illogical. argumentum ad ignorantiam.
just because it was not proven false, does not mean it is true.

EVERYTHING STARTS WITH CONSCIOUSNESS! That Consciousness is the ground of all being said the Physicist, Amit Goswami, Ph.D. Your old school of thought has been refuted already by Quantum PHYSICS professor! Have you really watched the findings of Dr. Hagelin? Maybe you are just pretending that you watched Dr. Hagelin explained about consciousness! Are you a physics major professor or a bible scholar?

and, sir, are you a physics major? that you agree so much to these "theories" without even knowing them, understanding them? the old school of thought being refuted by quantum physics? hahaha. USC never thinks so. it still teaches the laws of motion. the laws of energy conservation. but it never taught its community that "thought is energy" or "consciousness is energy" . again sir, GIVE ME AN ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIMS AS SCIENTIFIC FACTS. say, Collier's, Webster's or Americana, or Britannica. what? you can't? maybe because they don't dare put such illogical and unproved claims.

What are these mental processes made of professor?

processes are certainly NOT MATTER.

Isn't the brain just the instrument of the mind? Which is more mysterious the mind or the brain? Can the brain function without the mind? Can you see your mind? Now, can you deny that you don't have a mind because you cannot see one?

the mind is just a psychological concept. nothing physical. hahaha. what subject were you teaching again, sir?

Well, I understand that you are a materialist scientist professor just like Richard Dawkins who denied that there was no GOD!

wow. a very irresponsible statement. to use science as a tool to prove faith is good. in fact, i find it really pleasing. but, to use it in futility and refute scientific facts, it is just so not logical. hahaha.
SCIENCE, in the first place, is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. so there is no such thing as immaterial science.

I challenge you professor to refute this:that everything starts with consciousness with all your resources. And if you can refute this. I will discard reincarnation as valid for scientific study!

i don't need all resources. in fact, your statement refutes itself. in the sense that everything starts with consciousness, so thus the implication that consciousness starts with consciousness. a little disturbing? why so? maybe because you are begging the question.

although it is really fun wasting my time on idle banter, i find it foolish to keep talking to someone who does not listen to you. so, good luck with your new found "SCIENCE", i hope to see it in schools say, next school year? maybe you can start your own school, a UNIVERSITY ON METAPHYSICS or INSTITUTE OF IMMATERIAL SCIENCES. good careers come out from those. fortune tellers, mystics, and oh, did i mention fortune tellers?

cheers.

[regnauld]

i never did say that taking up the study is invalid. i have always remained firm that: REINCARNATION IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS A SCIENTIFIC FACT BY MAJOR AND REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES.


haha, so why waste your time proving something to be "scientifically true", when the community itself does not waste its time on it.


HAHAHAHAHA. this shows your ignorance sir. this logically illogical. argumentum ad ignorantiam.
just because it was not proven false, does not mean it is true.


and, sir, are you a physics major? that you agree so much to these "theories" without even knowing them, understanding them? the old school of thought being refuted by quantum physics? hahaha. USC never thinks so. it still teaches the laws of motion. the laws of energy conservation. but it never taught its community that "thought is energy" or "consciousness is energy" . again sir, GIVE ME AN ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIMS AS SCIENTIFIC FACTS. say, Collier's, Webster's or Americana, or Britannica. what? you can't? maybe because they don't dare put such illogical and unproved claims.


processes are certainly NOT MATTER.


the mind is just a psychological concept. nothing physical. hahaha. what subject were you teaching again, sir?


wow. a very irresponsible statement. to use science as a tool to prove faith is good. in fact, i find it really pleasing. but, to use it in futility and refute scientific facts, it is just so not logical. hahaha.
SCIENCE, in the first place, is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. so there is no such thing as immaterial science.


i don't need all resources. in fact, your statement refutes itself. in the sense that everything starts with consciousness, so thus the implication that consciousness starts with consciousness. a little disturbing? why so? maybe because you are begging the question.

although it is really fun wasting my time on idle banter, i find it foolish to keep talking to someone who does not listen to you. so, good luck with your new found "SCIENCE", i hope to see it in schools say, next school year? maybe you can start your own school, a UNIVERSITY ON METAPHYSICS or INSTITUTE OF IMMATERIAL SCIENCES. good careers come out from those. fortune tellers, mystics, and oh, did i mention fortune tellers?

cheers.

Are you not aware that there are such schools? Is Metaphysics as a subject not taught in USC Philosophy department? You are just exposing your ignorance mr. brilliant professor! Are you not aware too that there are schools abroad that offers Parapsychology courses? I think you should refute their lessons about those metaphysical studies. Relax mr. brilliant professor!

I don't have any problem, whether it is being accepted by major scientific community or not because as I have said, this scientific community focuses on material science rarher than on spiritual science. Why are you arrogant that science should be based only on material aspects? I think you should watch the conversation between Dr. Richard Dawkins, a materialist scientist and Dr. Deepak Chopra, a medical doctor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaX...eature=related

I don't have to be a physics major to agree with these theories. I only have to read their works and trust these distinguished physicists about their scientific studies. Unlike you, who is just a bible scholar! Who am I going to believe you or these physicists? Relax Brilliant Professor!

Do you know the root word of Psychology? It comes from the greek word "psyche" meaning mind or soul. See? The mind has something to do with the spiritual dimension. I think you have to study further mr. professor about the nature of consciousness. I have lots of books. Maybe you want to borrow.

For your information professor kindly study this article. Maybe you are aware of the writings of Swedenborg!

Anatomy of the Mind

In 1887 Rev. N. C. Burnham, a devoted Swedenborg scholar, published a careful study of the anatomy of the mind, summarizing the information given in the Writings of Swedenborg. Included in his study were several schematic diagrams that help us visualize the mind's anatomy. Dr. Ian Thompson did a superb job scanning the diagrams and the text of the 19th century book, making it available on the Web at: www.theisticscience.org/books/burnham/index.htm

By the way professor, I may be ignorant about your logic but I am not ignorant of the fact that Dr. Ian Stevenson and others are more credible than you when it comes to this subject. If they had lots of evidence to prove that reincarnation was real, then I would surely say that they were not mistaken.

I think you are the one who is disturbed right now because without consciousness, you wouldn't be able to understand yourself properly. hahahaha

[regnauld]

Aside from Dr. Ian Stevenson, another study from Peter John Ramster had documented cases about past life.

Believe It or NOT!

YouTube - Reincarnation-Regression (banned video) 1/11

Peter John Ramster apparently has made more films than written books: see the Worldcat listing of his works. His other book appears to be The Truth about Reincarnation from 1980, which was published by Rigby, Ltd, Adelaide, South Australia, a general publishing company that published from the early 1900s through at least the 1980s (see for example). The blurb of the The Truth about Reincarnation (1980) says:

The astounding story of how psychologist Peter Ramster discovered that many of his patients could actually remember their past lives. While he was using hypnotherapy to help a patient with her problems, she suddenly spoke to him as a woman from another age Under trance, she told him that she had lived in California during the period of the American War of Independence. Having made this startling discovery. Peter Ramster researched further He soon found that all persons capable of deep trance could recall having lived at different times in some cases thousands of years ago and in different countries. In this book, giving genuine case-histories and transcripts from tape-recorded conversations, he tells the whole amazing story.

The blurb of The Search for Lives Past (1992) says:

In my efforts to discover the truth about reincarnation, I concentrated my research on the unconscious psyche of the subjects. First, I tried to remove all unconscious blocks, fears, repression and neuroses which might either hamper recall or create fantasy. The next step was to make the subject recall and ability he or she might have had during a previous existence, the ability to speak or write a different language, or some artistic talent which could not possibly have been learned in this life. All the while my main aim was to ascertain the truth.

I think that his first work is a reliable source insofar as it is published by a reputable publishing company in Australia. The first work also lends credence to the reliability of the second work. But perhaps these are not sufficient for sources for WP. The Victor Zammit link purports to be a summary of Ramster's work from several sources:

The following information is taken from Peter Ramster's very important book, In Search of Lives Past (1990) and from a speech he gave to the Australian Hypnotherapists ninth National Convention at the Sydney Sheraton Wentworth Hotel on the 27th March, 1994 and from the films he made on reincarnation. In 1983 he produced a stunning television documentary in which four women from Sydney, who had never been out of Australia, gave details under hypnosis of their past lives. Then, accompanied by television cameras and independent witnesses, they were taken to the other side of the world....

One could cite the original Ramster sources, using Zammit as providing a summary of that work, since the original material is not readily available. Again, that might not be adequate for WP. One can certainly order the two books via used book sellers. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I have found interesting references to Ramsters work on youyube, but I'm unsure about wikipedia policy on references from there? Ian Lawton cites Ramsters work from "The Search For Lives Past" in his "The little book of the soul". Lawton reads himself in a series of youtube videos. Part 8, 9A & 9B is about Ramster's cases. YouTube - The Little Book of the Soul PART 8 YouTube - The Little Book of the Soul PART 9A YouTube - The Little Book of the Soul PART 9B Ramster's TV documentary from 1983 covering the same cases is also on youtube in 11 parts - #1 is here, YouTube - Reincarnation-Regression (banned video) 1/11 you can follow youtube's lead for the rest. Most interesting. Hepcat65 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Further references: to Peter Ramster's films on reincarnation:

• Peter Ramster and Brian Morris,Reincarnation, Sydney: Soundsense films (1982). OCLC 64353767.
• Peter Ramster, God doesn't play dice, Los Angeles, CA: Hemdale Home Video, Inc. (1991). OCLC 43043701. (I am presuming this is a film about reincarnation.)
• Peter Ramster, Life Death & Rebirth - A Film, no date given, listed on his web site:

A film about reincarnation and life after death - including case histories of children who prove their past life recollections and adults cured of lifelong afflictions through past life recall under hypnosis or who have had evidential near death experiences.

• Peter Ramster and Robert MacGregor, The Reincarnation Experiments, TV broadcast August 15, 2000. The description given on a University of Wollongong web page:

Two members of the University of Wollongong community have collaborated in the production of a documentary to be screened by Prime -TV on Tuesday 15 August. The film- 'The Reincarnation Experiments', documents the work of Peter Ramster, a practising psychologist of 30 years, who is studying immunology at UOW, while Information Systems senior Lecturer Robert MacGregor, has written the films soundtrack. 'The Reincarnation Experiments' focuses on the use of hypnosis by Peter Ramster to treat patients suffering psychological problems- in particular phobias and how, when hypnotised, some patients are able to provide detailed accounts of past lives.
"While treating patients I use hypnosis to take them back to their childhood in an attempt to identify the source of their individual problem or phobia, but I found some people spontaneously start talking about past lives", Mr Ramster said. Mr Ramster said since he began seriously examining the phenomena in the mid 70s he has had over 1,000 patients describe past lives to him while under hypnosis.
In an attempt "to extricate the memory’s fantasy from fact", Mr Ramster has hypnotised patients repeatedly over several years at intervals of six months, so as to correlate the information given and determine which specific facts remain consistent through time. "Boring people to tears over long periods of time", is how Mr Ramster describes his method of hypnosis.

After having viewed the documentary of Ramster's work from 1983 (on YouTube), I think the books and films are sufficiently reliable sources to document the essential features of Ramster's work. I think critical commentary that is directed generally to reincarnation regression or specifically toward Ramster's work also needs to be included. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:13, 14 July

Guys I want you to watch this documentary from YouTube - Reincarnation-Regression (banned video) 1/11
give me your comments after watching this video!

[necrotic freak]

A couple of years ago, ive seen a documentary film from youtube i couldnt remember the tile, sort of A BOY FROM THE PAST im not sure.. nice film though.

[regnauld]

A couple of years ago, ive seen a documentary film from youtube i couldnt remember the tile, sort of A BOY FROM THE PAST im not sure.. nice film though.

Have you watched this video on reincarnation that was banned by the church in Australia?

[carmicael]

Are you not aware that there are such schools? Is Metaphysics as a subject not taught in USC Philosophy department? You are just exposing your ignorance mr. brilliant professor! Are you not aware too that there are schools abroad that offers Parapsychology courses? I think you should refute their lessons about those metaphysical studies. Relax mr. brilliant professor!

hahaha. sir regnauld, i give you a salutation befitting your qualifications ("sir"), and you mock me with ridiculous/outrageous salutation ("professor"). very responsible of you sir. first and foremost, did i say that no university offers metaphysics? could you quote that sir? i believe i said no university offers REINCARNATION SCIENCE because it is not scientific in the first place.

I don't have any problem, whether it is being accepted by major scientific community or not because as I have said, this scientific community focuses on material science rarher than on spiritual science.

spiritual science is an oxy***** sir. science is the study of the physical aspect of the world.

Why are you arrogant that science should be based only on material aspects? I think you should watch the conversation between Dr. Richard Dawkins, a materialist scientist and Dr. Deepak Chopra, a medical doctor.

science, by definition sir, is any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws. science "measures".

I don't have to be a physics major to agree with these theories. I only have to read their works and trust these distinguished physicists about their scientific studies. Unlike you, who is just a bible scholar! Who am I going to believe you or these physicists? Relax Brilliant Professor!

trust, is more inclined to FAITH rather than SCIENCE. get your ideas straight sir. bible scholar? haha. you don't know what degrees i have achieved sir, yet your immature mind concludes such?

Do you know the root word of Psychology? It comes from the greek word "psyche" meaning mind or soul. See? The mind has something to do with the spiritual dimension. I think you have to study further mr. professor about the nature of consciousness. I have lots of books. Maybe you want to borrow.

very far fetched sir. i never asked for the meaning of psychology.

For your information professor kindly study this article. Maybe you are aware of the writings of Swedenborg!

Anatomy of the Mind

In 1887 Rev. N. C. Burnham, a devoted Swedenborg scholar, published a careful study of the anatomy of the mind, summarizing the information given in the Writings of Swedenborg. Included in his study were several schematic diagrams that help us visualize the mind's anatomy. Dr. Ian Thompson did a superb job scanning the diagrams and the text of the 19th century book, making it available on the Web at: www.theisticscience.org/books/burnham/index.htm

again, "theories", not "laws". is that so hard to comprehend?

By the way professor, I may be ignorant about your logic...

i'm very sorry sir, you seemed pretty confident, i thought you knew what you were saying. forgive me for having expected much from you.

...but I am not ignorant of the fact that Dr. Ian Stevenson and others are more credible than you when it comes to this subject.

so are they more credible than most physicists in the scientific community?

If they had lots of evidence to prove that reincarnation was real, then I would surely say that they were not mistaken.

having lots of evidences is useless unless the entire scientific community accepts this evidences. in a court case, having numerous evidences against a person neither acquits or convicts him. having CREDIBLE AND ACCEPTED EVIDENCES do.

I think you are the one who is disturbed right now because without consciousness, you wouldn't be able to understand yourself properly. hahahaha

did i say that human consciousness do not exist? please quote that part sir.

CONCLUSION:
reincarnation is a belief that some essential part of a living being (in some variations only human beings) survives death to be reborn in a new body. a BELIEF. reincarnation was NEVER a science. again, to repeat, a BELIEF. i have nothing against people with such beliefs, for who am i to judge. it may be factual, or maybe fictional, but to put it irresponsibly as an inarguable scientific fact, well, that's incorrect in every sense.

I may be ignorant about (your) logic

there is nothing more to argue here. I REST MY CASE.

cheers.