A case for reincarnation

Allan Kardec's well-known 19th century volume The Spirits' Book (full text online) collects answers given by a variety of trance mediums to philosophical and theological questions. It makes interesting reading even today.

One of the main points raised by the purported spirit communicators is that reincarnation is a fact, and that every soul must undergo a large number of incarnations on Earth or on other physical worlds.

Kardec mounts an extended defense of the "justice" of reincarnation, which - although dated in its treatment of race and culture - makes some valuable points. What follows is an excerpt. The full chapter (Chapter 5 of Book 2) can be read here.

Italics are in the original. Long paragraphs have been broken up for easier reading.

 =============

Let us, for the present, examine the matter from another point of view, entirely irrespective of any assumed declarations of spirits in regard to it. Let us put the latter entirely aside for the moment; let us suppose them to have made no statement whatever in regard to it; let us even suppose the very existence of spirits not to have been surmised. Placing ourselves a moment on neutral ground, and admitting, as equally possible, the hypotheses of the plurality and of the unity of corporeal existences, let us see which of these hypotheses is most in harmony with the dictates of reason and with the requirements of our own interest.

There are persons who reject the idea of reincarnation simply because they do not like it, declaring that their present existence has been quite enough for them, and that they have no wish to recommence a similar one. Of such persons we would merely inquire whether they suppose that God has consulted their wishes and opinions in regulating the universe?

Either the law of reincarnation exists, or it does not exist. If it exists, no matter how displeasing it may be to them, they will be compelled to submit to it; for God will not ask their permission to enforce it. It is as though a sick man should say, "I have suffered enough today; I do not chose to suffer tomorrow." No matter what may be his unwillingness to suffer, he will nevertheless be obliged to go on suffering, not only on the morrow, but day after day, until he is cured. In like manner, if it be their destiny to live again corporeally, they will thus live again, they will be reincarnated. In vain will they rebel against necessity, like a child refusing to go to school, or a condemned criminal refusing to go to prison. They will be compelled to submit to their fate, no matter how unwilling they may be to do so.

Such objections are too puerile to deserve a more serious examination. Let us say, however, for the consolation of those who urge them, that the spiritist doctrine of reincarnation is by no means so terrible as they imagine it to be; that the conditions of their next existence depend on themselves, and will be happy or unhappy according to the deeds done by them in this present life; and that they may even, by their action in this life, raise themselves above the danger of falling again into the mire of expiation.

We take it for granted that those whom we are addressing believe in some sort of future after death, and that they do not look forward either to annihilation or to a drowning of their soul in a universal whole, without individuality, like so many drops of rain in the ocean; which comes to much the same thing. But, if you believe in a future state of existence, you probably do not suppose that it will be the same for all; for, in that case, where would be the utility of doing right? Why should men place any restraint upon themselves? Why should they not satisfy all their passions, all their desires, even at the expense of the rest of the world, if the result is to be the same in all cases?

On the contrary, you no doubt believe that our future will be more or less happy according to what we have done in our present life; and you have doubtless the desire to be as happy as possible in the future to which you look forward, since it will be for all eternity! Do you, perchance, consider yourself to be one of the most excellent of those who have ever existed upon the earth, and therefore entitled to supreme felicity? No. You admit, then, that there are some who are better than you, and who have consequently a right to a higher place, although you do not deserve to be classed among the reprobate.

Place yourself, then, in thought, for a moment, in the medium condition which, according to your own admission, will properly be yours, and suppose that some one comes to you and says, "You suffer; you are not so happy as you might be; and meanwhile you see others in the enjoyment of unmixed happiness. Would you like to exchange your position for theirs?" "Undoubtedly, I should," you reply; "what must I do to bring about such a result?" "Something very simple; you have only to begin again what you have done badly, and try to do it better." Would you hesitate to accept the offer, even at the cost of several existences of trial?

Let us take another illustration, still more prosaic. Suppose that someone comes to a man who, though not in a state of absolute destitution, has to endure many privations through the smallness of his means, and says to him, "Here is an immense fortune, of which you may have the enjoyment, on condition that you work hard during one minute." The laziest of men, in response to such an offer, would say, without hesitation, "I am ready to work for one minute, for two minutes, for an hour, for a whole day if necessary! What is a day's labor in comparison with the certainty of ease and plenty for all the rest of my life?"

But what is the duration of a corporeal life in comparison with eternity? Less than a minute; less than a moment.

We sometimes hear people bring forward the following argument:-"God, who is sovereignly good, cannot impose upon man the hard necessity of recommencing a series of sorrows and tribulations." But would there be more kindness in condemning a man to perpetual suffering for a few moments of error than in giving him the means of repairing his faults?

"Two manufacturers had each a workman who might hope to become some day the partner of his employer. But it happened that both workmen made so very bad a use of their day that they merited dismissal. One of the manufacturers drove away his unfaithful workman, despite his supplications; and this workman, being unable to obtain any other employment, died of want. The other said to his workman-'You have wasted a day; you owe me compensation for the loss you have thus caused me. You have done your work badly; you owe me reparation for it. I give you leave to begin it over again. Try to do well, and I will keep you in my employ, and you may still aspire to the superior position which I had promised you."

Need we ask which of the manufacturers has shown himself to be the most humane? And would God, who is clemency itself, be more inexorable than a just and compassionate man? The idea that our fate is decided forever by a few years of trial, and notwithstanding the fact that it was not in our power to attain to perfection while we remained upon the earth, fills the mind with anguish; while the contrary idea is eminently consoling, for it leaves us hope.

Thus, without pronouncing for or against the plurality of existences, without admitting either hypothesis in preference to the other, we assert that, if the matter were left to our own choice, there is no one who would prefer incurring a sentence against which there should be no appeal. A philosopher has said that "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him for the happiness of the human race;" the same might be said in regard to the plurality of existences. But, as we have already remarked, God does not ask our permission in the establishment of providential ordering; He does not consult our preferences in the matter. Either the law of reincarnation exists, or it does not exist; let us see on which side is the balance of probabilities, considering the matter from another point of view, but still leaving out of sight all idea of any statements that have been made by spirits in regard to it, and examining the question merely as matter of philosophic inquiry.

If the law of reincarnation does not exist, we can have but one corporeal existence; and if our present corporeal life be our only one, the soul of each individual must have been created at the same time as his body; unless, indeed, we assume the anteriority of the soul, in which case we should have to inquire what was the state of the soul before its union with the body, and whether this state did not constitute an existence of some kind or other.

There is no middle ground. Either the soul existed before its union with the body, or it did not. If it existed, what was its condition? Was it possessed of self-consciousness? If not, its state must have been nearly equivalent to non-existence. If possessed of individuality, it must have been either progressive or stationary; in either case, what was its degree of advancement on uniting itself to the body?

If, on the contrary, it be assumed, according to the general belief, that the soul is born into existence at the same time as the body-or that, previous to the birth of the body, it possesses only negative faculties-we have to propose the following questions:

1. Why do souls manifest so great a diversity of aptitudes independently of the ideas acquired by education?

2. Whence comes the extra-normal aptitude for certain arts and sciences displayed by many children while still very young, although others remain in a state of inferiority, or of mediocrity, all their life?

3. Whence do some individuals derive the innate or intuitive ideas that are lacking in others?

4. Whence do some children derive the precocious instincts of vice or of virtue, the innate sentiments of dignity or of baseness, which often contrast so strikingly with the situation into which they are born?

5. Why is it that some men, independently of education, are more advanced than others?

6. Why is it that among the races which people the globe some are savage and others civilized? ...

What is the philosophy or the theosophy that can solve these problems? Either the souls of men are equal at their birth, or they are unequal. If they are equal, why these inequalities of aptitude? Will it be said that these inequalities depend on the corporeal organization of each child? But such a doctrine would be the most monstrous and the most immoral of hypotheses; for, in that case, man would be a mere machine, the sport of matter; he would not be responsible for his actions, but would have the right to throw all the blame of his wrongdoing on the imperfections of his physical frame. If, on the other hand, souls are created unequal, God must have created them so; but, in that case, why is this innate superiority accorded to some and denied to others? And would such partiality be consistent with the justice of God, and the equal love He bears to all His creatures?

Admit, on the contrary, a succession of existences, and everything is explained. Men bring with them, at their birth in flesh, the amount of intuition they have previously acquired. They are more or less advanced, according to the number of existences they have previously accomplished, according as they are nearer to or farther from the common starting-point; exactly as, in a company made up of individuals of different ages, each will possess a degree of development proportionate to the number of years he has already lived; the succession of years being, to the life of the body, what the succession of existences is to the life of the soul....

God, in His justice, could not create souls more or less perfect. But granting the plurality of our corporeal existences, there is nothing in the differences of quality that we see around us in any way inconsistent with the most rigorous equity; for what we see around us is then perceived to have its roots, not in the present, but in the past....

We have [been] considering the soul in regard to its past and its present; if we consider it in regard to the future, we are met by difficulties which the theories in vogue are equally unable to explain:

1. If our future destiny is to be decided solely by our present existence, what will be in the future the respective positions of the savage and of the civilized man? Will they be on the same level, or will there be a difference in the sum of their eternal felicity?

2. Will the man who has labored diligently all his life to advance his moral and intellectual improvement be placed in the same rank with the man who, not through his own fault, but because he has had neither the time nor the opportunity for advancing, has remained at a lower point of moral and intellectual improvement?

3. Can the man who has done wrong because the means of enlightenment have been denied to him be justly punished for wrong-doing which has not been the result of his own choice?

4. We endeavor to enlighten, moralize, and civilize mankind; but, for one whom we are able to enlighten, there are millions who die every year without the light having reached them What is to be the fate of these millions? Are they to be treated as reprobates? and, if they are not to be so treated, how have they deserved to be placed in the same category with those who have become enlightened and moralized?

5. What is to be the fate of children who die before they have been able to do either good or evil? If they are to be received among the supremely happy, why should this favor be granted to them without their having done anything to deserve it? And in virtue of what privilege are they exempted from undergoing the tribulations of the earthly life?

Which of the doctrines hitherto propounded can solve these problems? But, if we admit the fact of our consecutive existences all these problems are solved in conformity with the divine justice. What we are not able to do in one existence we do in another. None are exempted from the action of the law of progress; every one is rewarded progressively, according to his deserts, but no one is excluded from the eventual attainment of the highest felicity, no matter what may be the obstacles he has to encounter on the road....

We have argued the matter, as we remarked above, without reference to statements made by spirits; such statements being, for many minds, without authority. If we, and so many others, have adopted the hypothesis of the plurality of existences, we have done so not merely because it has been proclaimed by spirits, but because it has appeared to us to be eminently rational, and because it solves problems that are insoluble by the opposite hypothesis. Had it been suggested to us by a mere mortal, we should, therefore, have adopted it with equal confidence, renouncing, with equal promptitude, our preconceived opinions on the subject; for when an opinion has been shown to be erroneous, even self-love has more to lose than to gain by persisting in holding it. In like manner, we should have rejected the doctrine of reincarnation, even though proclaimed by spirits, if it had appeared to us to be contrary to reason, as, indeed, we have rejected many other ideas which spirits have sought to inculcate, for we know, by experience, that we can no more give a blind acceptance to ideas put forth by spirits than we can to those put forth by men.

The principal merit of the doctrine of reincarnation is, then, to our minds, that it is supremely rational. But it has also in its favor the confirmation of facts-facts positive and, so to say, material, which are apparent to all who study the question with patience and perseverance, and in presence of which all doubt as to the reality of the law in question is impossible. When the appreciation of these facts shall have become popularized, like those which have revealed to us the formation and rotation of the earth, they who now oppose this doctrine will be compelled to renounce their opposition.

To sum up: We assert the doctrine of the plurality of existences is the only one which explains what, without this doctrine, is inexplicable; that it is at once eminently consolatory and strictly conformable with the most rigorous justice; and that it is the anchor of safety which God in His mercy has provided for mankind.

[Allan Kardec, The Spirits' Book, Ch. 5, Book 2]

Comments

[Matt Rouge]

Interesting. It's quite striking that spirits in the West were asserting the truth of reincarnation at such an early date. Suppose for a moment that there were not spirits and this was all stuff that was in the mediums' heads. Wouldn't they have tended to assert the truth of a Western-style (Christian) afterlife? This really does give credence to the belief in reincarnation, which I personally hold.

[Kathleen]

I for one don't see the idea of reincarnation as rational at all. I don't see why it should be puzzling either that some people are more proficient than others in certain areas. I also hate how reincarnation is so strongly associated with karma, and if you look at someplace like India, where it's so widely believed in, it seems to me it's used so politically. "The reason why you're a poor miserable Untouchable is that you did lots of bad things in your previous life, too bad, and the reason why I'm rich and powerful is because I was so wonderful in my previous life."

I also just finished reading, "The Seat of the Soul" by Gary Kuvak. While he made some powerful observations about human nature, and seems to mean well, I found the whole thing very depressing. The idea that the average person, who I believe tries to be decent a human being, has to endlessly learn and re-learn lessons over lifetimes, because of what are only minor slip-ups in character, and harsh circumstances that led to bad decisions, ugh, I just find that notion hellish. Hopefully if reincarnation does exist, the whole thing's strictly voluntary--and please count me out.

[Michael Tymn]

Michael,

You say reincarnation either is or isn't and there is no middle ground. Moreover, you assume a certain definition for "soul."
I know you have discussed this before and that ideas have to be recycled over time, but let me again quote Frederic W. H. Myers in his after-death communication through Geraldine Cummins:

“While I was on earth, I belonged to a group-soul, but its branches and the spirit – which might be compared to the roots – were in the invisible. Now, if you would understand psychic evolution, this group-soul must be studied and understood. For instance, it explains many of the difficulties that people will assure you can be removed only by the doctrine of reincarnation. You may think my statement frivolous, but the fact that we do appear on earth to be paying for the sins of another life is, in a certain sense, true. It is our life and yet not our life.”

Myers went on to explain that a soul belonging to the group of which he was part lived a previous life and built for him a framework for his own earthly life. The spirit – the bond of the group soul – manifests, he said, many times on earth.

“We are all of us distinct,” he
continued, “though we are influenced by others of our community on the various planes of being.” He further explained that a group soul might contain twenty souls, a hundred souls, or a thousand souls.

“When your Buddhist speaks of the cycle of birth, of man’s continual return to earth, he utters but a half-truth,” Myers went on. “And often a half-truth is more inaccurate than an entire misstatement. I shall not live again on earth, but a new soul, one who will join our group, will shortly enter into the pattern of karma I have woven for him on earth.”

Myers likened the soul to a spectator caught within the spell of some drama outside of its actual life, perceiving all the consequences of acts, moods, and thoughts of a kindred soul. He further pointed out that there are an infinite variety of conditions in the invisible world and that he made no claim to being infallible. He called it a “general rule” based on what he had learned and experienced on the Other Side.

Silver Birch, the supposedly advanced soul (probably a group soul) who spoke through the entranced Maurice Barbanell of England for nearly 50 years said: “There is reincarnation, but not in the sense in which it is generally expounded." He went on to explain that the individual personality on earth is a small part of the individuality to which he or she belongs. He likened it to a diamond with its many facets, pointing out that the personality on earth is but one facet of the diamond.

“… there are what you call ‘group souls,’ a single unity with facets which have spiritual relationships that incarnate at different times, at different places, for the purpose of equipping the larger soul for its work,” Silver Birch further explained.

Personally, I don't know what to believe. I reject Super ESP when it comes to its usual application to mediumistic messages, but I am inclined to accept some kind of Super ESP relative to reincarnation. I conclude that it is beyond human comprehension and that is why there has been so much conflict in mediumistic messages relative to reincarnation.

[Michael Prescott]

"You say reincarnation either is or isn't and there is no middle ground. Moreover, you assume a certain definition for 'soul.'"

Kardec said it, not me.

The "Myers" and Silver Birch comments are definitely another way of looking at it. Like you, I don't know what to believe, though I incline more toward reincarnation than I used to.

"I also hate how reincarnation is so strongly associated with karma, and if you look at someplace like India, where it's so widely believed in, it seems to me it's used so politically."

True, but it's possible to separate the two concepts, and to see new incarnations as opportunities for growth rather than as punishments or rewards.

"The idea that the average person, who I believe tries to be decent a human being, has to endlessly learn and re-learn lessons over lifetimes ... I just find that notion hellish."

Suppose I were to rewrite this sentence as follows: "The idea that a person who has taken a trip to Europe should also have to take a trip to South America and another trip to Asia and even more trips to other destinations ... I just find that notion hellish."

It doesn't sound quite so hellish when stated that way, does it? When separated from karma and viewed as a way of broadening one's experiences, reincarnation starts to look a little more desirable, at least to me.

[TomC]

the idea of karma is often simplified in the mainstream media. 'you reaped what you sowed' is oversimplified. also, when u think of lessons as series of rewards and punishments then you're actually missing the point.

think of it this way:

a flow of energy goes thru a series of stages- and each stage, that energy is changed by something (cause), and then the energy in turn causes another change (effect). so now, if the energy is affected in some way as the result, that energy is likely to favor that effect and would lead to changes that would further affect the energy in a similar way.

so, as a human being, you are not born out of nothing- but you derived from biological, physical and environmental composites. for example, if say your parents smoke and drink while you were developing, that will have negative effect on you. and as you're born, you're given the sum of all the effects caused by numerous factors (cause and effect)- now that you're here. it's your choice to do what you can with what you're given- although people who come from negative background tend to get reinforced to follow that pattern, and positive background will reinforce positive pattern.

now, the idea of karma is not that you're fated to be certain ways or act certain ways. All these causes made you who you are NOW, but it's what you CHOOSE to do from here now on that will have the most meaningful impact to not only you, but all living things around you. That's why some people would thrive despite of adversity, and some would fail despite all the good things in their lives. from that point now, your actions will be the cause of not just you or your family, but of everything in this universe.

for some people, their actions enable great changes, and for some, their actions changes very little. however, these little changes will eventually lead to great changes....so you can think of it as coming to this earth over and over and learning the same lesson over and over- or you can think that for every life you CHOOSE to do something over and over, or just do something slightly different- but eventually you would garner wisdom that you would need so you can move on to the next lesson.

karma doesnt force you to do anything; your action does. karma is just a term that define the whole relationship between cause and effect and your will within all this.

the so-called 'the untouchables' is just a label given by people who chose not to show compassion to help them so they would feel that their lack of charity is justified. but as the result of their selfishness and indifference, they've also become the cause of a series of chain reactions that would probably not favor them in their spiritual development.

[Aftrbrnr]

I don't think it was just mediums back in the day, I'm trying to dig it out but apparently there are statistics that show NDE'rs are more likely to believe in reincarnation than our average person. Of course, that doesn't mean all NDE experiencers feel the same way, though.

[jack]

"...ugh, I just find that notion hellish. Hopefully if reincarnation does exist, the whole thing's strictly voluntary--and please count me out."

Posted by: Kathleen | October 23, 2010 at 03:32 PM

I agree.
It would appear that the idea of a "hell" has changed (for Christians in the last few hundred years).
I find the idea of being sent for eternity to an everlasting hell impossible to understand.
I find Kardec's dogmatic views equally hard to stomach. There seems to be a lack of compassion. And a possibility that there might be no end to the infinity of "lives"
Not my cup of tea!

[Vitor]

I think the CORTs clearly show that there is no such thing like a "divine justice". See the discussion of karma in the book "Life Before Life", by Jim Tucker.

[Zerdini]

Off topic:

Tom Harrison, son of the materialisation medium, Minnie Harrison, has passed to the Spirit World aged 92.

He chronicled his experiences in the book:

"Life After Death - Living Proof: A Lifetime's Experiences of Physical Phenomena and Materialisations Through the Mediumship of Minnie Harrison" available through Amazon.

[Michael Prescott]

I read Tom Harrison's book and reviewed it on this blog a few years ago. It was very interesting and carried, I thought, a ring of truth even though the seances weren't conducted under scientifically controlled conditions. It's hard to see how Minnie Harrison, terminally ill with cancer and very weak, could have pulled off the large-scale fraud that would be required in any "normal" explanation. It's also hard to imagine what motive she could have had.

On the other hand, photos of the alleged "spirits" don't look terribly convincing.

Still, on balance I think Minnie was probably a genuine medium.

[Alex]

Arthur Findlay on his books "On the edge of the etheric" and "Where two worlds meet", dismiss the idea of reincarnation (suposed spirits told him at the seances with medium J.Sloan). General confusion!

[Cyrus]

Maybe Tom Harrison will be making some appearances around today's physical circles in Montcabirol, France and the Felix Circle in Germany.

That is, if those circles are legitimate. I won't know until I investigate them myself. :-)

[MickeyD]

I see from Veronica Keen's blog that David Fontana just died too. It will be interesting to see if he starts coming through and reporting his impressions.....

[Zerdini]

MP wrote:

On the other hand, photos of the alleged "spirits" don't look terribly convincing.

In 1993 Tom Harrison wrote in the Ark Review that he took the photographs using infra-red photography. "I was to activate the lighting equipment through the glass Wratten filter. As the Wratten filter is extremely deep ruby red in colour and the light was an instantaneous millisecond flash, it was quite impossible to see anything with the naked eye but we were very thrilled by the eventual result."

He also added: "I would never dispute the right of anyone to make such valid comments about such very unusual, rare and unique photographs, taken by myself in complete darkness with very basic and unsophisticated infra-red equipment which was available in those days (1948), but I would only hope that they would accept my solemn affirmation that such was not the case and they are all genuine photographs of ectoplasmic spirit manifestations - and I still have the original glass plates in my possession for anyone to see."

[Zerdini]

Maybe Tom Harrison will be making some appearances around today's physical circles in Montcabirol, France and the Felix Circle in Germany.

That is, if those circles are legitimate. I won't know until I investigate them myself. :-)

I would be very surprised if Tom Harrison or David Fontana were able to communicate anything through the circles you mention as I have never read any evidence of survival given through them.

Trumpets flying around and alleged ectoplasm displays are not evidence of survival.

[Zerdini]

Arthur Findlay on his books "On the edge of the etheric" and "Where two worlds meet", dismiss the idea of reincarnation (suposed spirits told him at the seances with medium J.Sloan). General confusion!

Why 'supposed spirits'?

Arthur Findlay set out the evidence which convinced him. Those of us who have done similar investigations have reached the same conclusion i.e. that life is continuous.

[Art]

"It would appear that the idea of a "hell" has changed (for Christians in the last few hundred years).
I find the idea of being sent for eternity to an everlasting hell impossible to understand." - jack
-----------------------------

Reincarnation sounds like hell to me. I don't buy it. The story humans have made up to explain the evidence doesn't make sense to me; and as far as what psychics and mediums say about it? I think a big part of the message gets garbled up with the beliefs and culture of the messenger. Something else is going on. I think it's got something to do with the reciever/transmitter theory of the brain, and that "oneness and connectedness" thing of heaven.

[Bryan.A]

"Which of the doctrines hitherto propounded can solve these problems?"

U ask many questions,let me link this crude representational video based on the work of the author and medium Jozef Rulof that might answer some of those questions

Reincarnation from the start of human life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0weGgVD8XY&feature=player_embedded#!

Creation of The hereafter and reincation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxG80awshME&feature=related

I believe the theory of PanSpermia might explain the later part of the vid where evolution carries itself from planet to planet.

The other videos might answer some of the other questions u have.
===================================

In short people reincarnate much more then a single time or even 100 times,millions or more lifes have been spent building up temperament,character,everything which makes you:you.Reincarnation is the great Justice Of the universe.Cause and effect means everyone will make right what they did wrong,karma will mean mayority that killed will give Life back.Many Souls were born at a different time at the birth of human cels,hence the different phase for everyone in regards to biological evolution,intelligence,cause and effect,etc.This only means they are at a different step of the ladder,eventually everyone will evolve to the higher spheres,from darkness to light,from chaos to harmony.People reincarnate against their wills,whether they want to or not the universe,nature has laws that will bring balance back to the chaos humanity sets to it.

[Bryan.A]

*Note
The second video might probably be more relevant to your questions.

[Roger Knights]

Tonight, Wednesday, on Coast-to-Coast AM:

"Reincarnation & Auras (Wed 10-27)

"Two of the world's leading experts on auras and human energy, Barbara Martin and Dimitri Moraitis will discuss the mechanics of reincarnation and the implications of past lives on this life and our future lives."

[body detox]

ry volume The Spirits' Book (full text online) collects answers given by a variety of trance mediums to philosophical and theological questions. It makes interesting reading even today.
One of the main points raised by the purported spirit communicators is

[Faye]

I very much do believe in reincarnation it seems to me that this (like many other spiritual concepts) is one that we cannot fully grasp or understand with our physically based mind. Our physical minds like to think and conceptualize in terms of 'black and white' and such concepts do not lend themselves to being put into defined boxes.

Its trying to understand something that occurs outside of the physical realm with our minds that are part and parcel 'of' the physical realm.

This certainly doesn't mean that we can't ponder such issues and even come to some semblance of belief and/or understanding regarding them...but I've learned myself to simply accept that perhaps while I'm physically based, certain concrete answers to my most burning questions just might have to go unanswered.

I've had numerous conversations with my deceased loved ones...undoubtedly a very subjective experience, however one that I believe has given me some 'glimpses' of answers on this subject.