What I love about buddhism is, all the claims are supposed to be verifiable with personal empirical experience. "Ehipassika".

I understand some are able to perceive past lives, with various techniques.

How can one know if this is simply a trick of the mind, or a reality?

If scientists were to design an experiment to discover if this is true or false, how would you go about it?

Not a buddhist but if you practice with some kind of imaginal practice (I'm currently doing dream yoga) then you can view entering a dream as a rebirth.
The onotological status of these experiences are hard to determine, but you can still derive value from them by practicing
morality and using it as a simulator to learn from experience it would still have an effect upon you. Empirically effects like jhana are also amplified
during dream state, so mental moves seem more observable like learning to move between the jhanas.

Experiences that feel "real", with that noetic quality of "truth" that would seem to strongly imply rebirth can definitely arise in some practitioners and even occasionally non-practitioners, particularly young children.

As noted above, issues of ontology are complicated, though there are fascinating documented case series at places like DOPS at UVA with curious evidence.

As noted above, they can also sometimes provide deep psychological insights that can be valuable (or sometimes not so valuable) regardless of issues of ontological verification.

Even within Buddhism, one finds it explained both ways, meaning that rebirth is real or not real, depending on the frame of reference. Through a first or second training point of view, the "form" or "compassion" end of things, there is rebirth and karma, a past, a future, and all of that. From a third training point of view, the "emptiness" end of things, there is no rebirth, nothing to be reborn, nothing separate, only transient sensations arising and vanishing now, no past, no future, and this moment to insubstantial to withstand scrutiny.

Both frames can be helpful from a pragmatic point of view, depending on the practitioner, practice, phase of practice, goals, etc.

I know Sadhguru has talked about how he had past life experiences, and has recognized people from his current life in them, and then helped said people recall their own past lives and confirm that they were friends in past lives. I suppose, if that's true, that would confirm it. I haven't had any past life experiences myself so I can't speak for any validity, but if that's possible I suppose that's one way of validating.

I want to be respectful and reply to all these awesome comments, but they really leave me lost for words.

Will try to reply if I can achieve brainfunction later.

Dr. Ian Stevenson was a scientist who studied reincarnation.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/who-we-are/history-of-dops/dr-ian-stevenson/

He studied children with verified memories of past lives, some of whom had an rare type of birthmark at a location on their body that corresponded to an injury in the past life.

They don't.  I was raised catholic. How do we know heaven in real. Faith they say. Hmmm . Even buddhism which  seems more rational and less dogmatic  contains an element of faith.    I don't think NDE are hard evidence  of an Intermittent  state ,Christain or Buddhist. However  it should be studied  I believe.

I asked ChatGPT the following question:

If scientists were to design an experiment to discover if rebirth were true or false, how would you go about it?
Here is the reply:

The concept of rebirth, which is also known as reincarnation, is a philosophical and religious idea that is not currently supported by scientific evidence. However, if scientists were to design an experiment to investigate the possibility of rebirth, they would need to develop a rigorous experimental protocol that could be replicated and tested by other researchers.Here are some general considerations for designing an experiment to investigate the possibility of rebirth:

1. Define the hypothesis: The first step in designing any experiment is to clearly define the hypothesis that you want to test. In this case, the hypothesis would be that rebirth is a real phenomenon that can be scientifically verified.
2. Develop a study design: To investigate the hypothesis of rebirth, scientists would need to design a study that could collect and analyze data in a systematic way. This might involve identifying individuals who claim to have memories of past lives and comparing their statements to historical or archaeological records to determine their accuracy.
3. Select participants: Scientists would need to carefully select participants who claim to have memories of past lives and verify their claims through interviews and other forms of data collection.
4. Collect and analyze data: Scientists would need to collect data from the participants and analyze it using statistical methods to determine if there is any correlation between their memories and historical or archaeological records.
5. Replicate the study: To ensure the validity of the results, the experiment would need to be replicated by other researchers using the same or similar methods.

It's important to note that the concept of rebirth is not currently supported by scientific evidence, and designing an experiment to investigate it would be a significant challenge. Additionally, any study that seeks to investigate the possibility of rebirth would need to be conducted with sensitivity and respect for the beliefs and cultural traditions of the individuals involved.

It may help to examine the other options . The usual one is that subjective experience is a byproduct of brain chemicals. If you actually scrutinize that idea, it's pretty trippy.  To me it's actually more magical & fantastical than the rebirth option, which simply posits the serial continuity of moments of experience in a continuum, similar to other continuums we observe in daily life & science.

Indeed. The more fundamental question from a scientific standpoint is what is consciousness? Nobody has a convincing answer as to how the experience of an apple can arise from a bunch of chemicals and cells wired together in a neural net inside a body.

Why is does modern western science assume that materiality comes first and subjective mental phenomena is a byproduct of brain chemicals? Why can't the latter be true? Or co-arising of both?

It's just a gratuitious assumption in my opinion and a blind-spot for the scientific establishment.

It's weird that this hasn't been said explicitly, but only kind of vaguely gestured as - but you have visions with the noetic quality of truth Daniel was talking about, but *they seem to do with past lives*. So some people have context around them (like they remember things reversed chronologically until they get to the start, and then they keep going backwards until it's an old life).

But even within Buddism there are problems with rebirth
​​​​​​​

from nagarjunas Madhyamaka, by westeroff 

Beth Upton, who trained as a nun with Pa Auk Sayadaw, says that past life memories are generally suspect, even if they feel real, unless they reveal insight into the karmic seed that gave rise to the next rebirth. She gives a basic instruction on how to do the practice of recalling previous lives on her youtube page. 

A lot of the siddhi stuff seems a bit suspect to me. I've met people who claim to read minds and be able to smell diseases and what not, and the statistician training in me just thinks "wow what a very testable claim that you're not going to hold up to scrutiny".

But at the same time I've had weird visions and WILD lucid dreaming when meditation, as well as dreams that "solve" life stuff. I don't think the question should be "is it real?" But really "does this help me live a better life?"

"Ok friend" 

Perhaps it is backwards. Maybe those chemicals, cells and brain networks arise from experience...

But they don't. The topic is controversial. Religious buddhists accept this, because it's in the scripture... sort of.<br />1. Agnostic buddhists experience the perpetuation of Karma, but it is not clear if "rebirth" means that the identity persists, or even if it transmits from one individual to another one (vs. many-to-many). What they definitely experience is that Karma (will, if you like) persists through death (has consequences after someone's death). Take a look at Vipassana: the goal is to experience that "me" is a illusion. How can a non-existing individuum concept be so important in buddhism?<br />2. If I remember correctly, Buddha refused to answer the question of transcendence and individuality. There are of course the Sutras with his past lives, but those are apocryphical. Unfortunately, Buddhism is too vague to have a single interpretation, apart from not being clear if it is a relgion or what.

I have also been thinking about this since I came across Beth and Pa Auk.

A couple of relevant videos by Beth:
Discerning past nama (mentality)
Which kamma produced your life?

It seems to me the answer is that they know because they simply investigated our phenomenological experience to such a great extent that they
can also be certain that they know. They can go down the chain of mind moments back to childhood and even back to the time they were in their mother's womb and then they discovered it's possible to go even beyond that. Beth describes that the mind moment of being in a womb is in stark contrast to the mind moment of a dying being that's immediately preceding it. And they can be certain that they know because of the one-pointedness of awareness - if their awareness slipped and they'd start dreaming things up, they'd notice. And they studied all the characteristics of the different concentrated awareness types - she goes into all the details in her videos.
I think that a part of this podcast is also relevant: Beth Upton - Insight Myanmar

I actually came looking here because I think there are people here who probably have the skill and ability to try this out, so maybe there's someone here who can speak from experience. I vaguely recall Delson Armstrong briefly discussing past lives, possibly in one of Guru Viking's podcasts. I'm not sure if he implied that he can do it, but I think he mentioned that it requires a lot of skill. I don't even do Vipassana, so I don't try to provide a more precise description with all the correct terminology above.

I'd appreciate pointers to yogic sources on this topic. Is there something equivalent to Pa Auk's exercises and level of rigor in Yoga?

Buddhism comes with a lot of cultural baggage.

Accepting only what could be verified empirically is generally a skillful attitude. 

Much-more-better is to look at this "rebirth" via the 6 Realms and 5 Elemens practice. We live and die every arising-passing moment. Life and death in one breath.

​​​​​​​

Life does not know death.

Life is endless, like a river

it has a rhythm to it

we receive it from our ancestors and pass it on to our progeny

giving, giving

​​​​​​​generation to generation

"a way a lone a last a loved a long the / riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs." 
​​​​​​​

last and first sentences of finnegan's wake, james joyce


HCE refers to the chief character, Here Comes Everybody

Sense of self originally (and in healthy mind) is just an image made (by evolution) by sensual experiences enhance to simplify thinking of one's own state - something especially useful when we primates and then monkeys started living in groups. It is just feedback system. Similarly to how senses experiencing effects of acting with your body can be thought of as feedback system. Sense of self is just internal feedback system - mostly using muscle tension so in fact something between external feedback (like observing yourself moving hand with your eyes) and purely internal that don't use actual physical senses (muscle tension is sensual experience).

There is however an issue and not even with sense of self but feedback systems - mind that has them might start generating identity views. These usually cause suffering because since the same mind is there to protect body it causes such mind to protect itself from things it perceive as harmful for it and this include change. Change involves disappearing to be replaced - mind feat to disappear.

This condition as I call it causes mind to think of it needing to exist as it is exactly and this causes suffering because mind cannot physically operate without changing its underlying components. When it as I call it 'disperses' then it makes it much easier for nervous system to switch active parts in and out. That is why pretty much all descriptions of enlightenment talk about something to do with self.

Some people never really sort faculty of sense of self (which require realizing what it is) and some take not having it arise as becoming ego-less - which is nonsense as being selfish has nothing to do with feedback system used or one being used. For identity views just having feedback of external senses is totally enough to cause identity views. For being ill willed it is enough to consider bad actions as acceptable. With identity views there also comes motivation. Even without rigid identity views which can be felt mind will still prioritize itself. Potential mind without any feedback loops might be selfless simply because of not having any form of identity due to missing feedback loops but such person would be incapable of acting not seeing what it does so pretty useless. No to mention such person could not learn to operate. And if they learned how to operate then it would be just repeating pre-programmed operations mindlessly.

Person has to not remove feedback loops but learn to recognize identity views developing and just disperse them. If anything more feedback loops help with them and having such feedback loops which can be easily controlled by mind and used when needed. In fact best way to not have identity views is having much more feedback loops but activate them only from time to time and/or deactivate them from time to time. Duty cycle should also have its own feedback loop... or to call it differently be conscious.

---
How does this relate to Buddha and his rebirth?

We are talking about very dedicated ascete who did believe in most things taught to him by fellow ascetes. He figured that trick with Nibbana but from what he talks he never had very good perception of it. Living in times where people just didn't know certain things also made it easier to justify some types of thinking. I am pretty sure compared to typical Arhat his perception was a god-like but mind can do much better. In fact my goal was always to have such percpetion that if Buddha found himself in some pickle to be able to free him.

Now what is not wanting to exist?
I didn't need error-corrected perception to realize he was depressed. The matter was to figure: why?
Now the why is pretty simple, his liking of relief, liberation. He found Nibbana and it has this thing I call relief very close to it. It is very easy to indulge in this experience separately to study when focus and with it control of parameters influencing neuronal activity is such precise that difference between jhana, nibbana and relief can be resolved. If not then we get kinda jhanic experience of relief that also inhibits stuff and causes identity views to disperse. Because of how inducing activity with this activity trigger causes it to spread its easy to imagine how he could figure to just rather than let activity go where it went... which could not be left alone as it feels agitated... but rather cause such "fuzzy Nibbana" as it can be called in the whole mind would cause the whole thing to just sorta melt. It is enough to be closer to the so called 'center' (so on Nibbana) to cause whole thing to settle mostly on inactivity when inducing it is stopped.

Easy to imagine... why even imagine. It can be just done.
I did that for few years but because I practiced my perception and it was my priority - which it was because I suspected that if I don't I'll get stuck on some tricks like this, besides I wanted to be ready for monitors with bazillion of pixels - I started to eventually consider this a low level trick. I realized what the liberation in what Buddha talked is and considered it a fetter itself.

Now I don't think Buddha necessarily didn't figure out that. Rather I think he was deliberately not very precise in his teachings knowing that by practicing with this stuff person can figure truth. I also think he knew this impossible situation of popularity (which he wouldn't have if he started stating things as they are) versus inevitability of degradation of dharma which is inevitable because people when moving to target like to keep safe distance so whatever someone  was talking about even if it was already with calculated distance people would still not achieve this level if they didn't have Buddha as the reference to push them.

Unless of course someone realizes what the "Buddha" is. Then they are limitless.

---
ok ok but what about rebirth?

WHAT REBIRTH?

I was pondering about the nature of 'the issue' and one term got likes in my mind: "RETIRMENT FUND SCAM"
Buddha just realized its all a scam. Very deliberate scam and proliferated for a reason. Mostly allowed by ignorance and fear but invented by ill will.

I don't think Buddha figured good solution to it. About as good as good solution anyone can figure out. No matter the implementation details the solution is the same.

So basically Buddha realized what karma is and how its used by ill willed entities to shut the people up, their consciousness by promising them an after-life and also other perks and of course punishment for diobedience. Different cultures have different details but the premise and methods are always the same.

My attitude always was: don't touch that stuff. Even devil has rules it doesn't break as it cannot do certain things which consciousness can. There can be workarounds. Other than that my attitude was: people just need to throw this 'contract' as off and realize its a scam. Scams are not legally binding. Of course if that was only that easy. It is but it also isn't. Need to be a bit more inventive than I already am. Things change but some things still stay the same. Sooner or later I will figure it out. I can feel it in my neurons ;)

Metta Fruitions,
Ni

When did the Buddha recall his past lives? Was it moments before his enlightenment  or did it happen right after.? I could never exactly  figure that out.

nn says


Sense of self originally (and in healthy mind) is just an image made (by evolution) by sensual experiences enhance to simplify thinking of one's own state - something especially useful when we primates and then monkeys started living in groups. It is just feedback system. Similarly to how senses experiencing effects of acting with your body can be thought of as feedback system. Sense of self is just internal feedback system - mostly using muscle tension so in fact something between external feedback (like observing yourself moving hand with your eyes) and purely internal that don't use actual physical senses (muscle tension is sensual experience).






Sense of self does not originate with sensual experience. Child  learns to differentiate self when identifying objects in the learning of language. I me mine, I me mine, I me mine, all through the day and nght.

"Thinking of one's own state" does not precede learning to think.

Most people tend to confuse what is really going on with what they think is going on. Putting the cart before the horse.

First the word self is invented, then it is applied. Jameson likens sense perception to a room in which a stage has been set, the lights placed just so, various props placed in various places and Here Cones Everybody, 



dhammapada, chapter one, v 1-6
​​​​​​​

Mind precedes its objects. They are mind-governed and mind-made. To speak or act with a defiled mind is to draw pain after oneself, like a wheel behind the feet of the animal drawing it. 1

Mind precedes its objects. They are mind-governed and mind-made. To speak or act with a peaceful mind, is to draw happiness after oneself, like an inseparable shadow. 2

I have been insulted! I have been hurt! I have been beaten! I have been robbed! Anger does not cease in those who harbour this sort of thought. 3

I have been insulted! I have been hurt! I have been beaten! I have been robbed! Anger ceases in those who do not harbour this sort of thought. 4

Occasions of hatred are certainly never settled by hatred. They are settled by freedom from hatred. This is the eternal law. 5

Others may not understand that we must practice self-control, but quarrelling dies away in those who understand this fact. 6

Sense of self is just a projected sensual experience that we evolved to have because its useful.
We (as in humans) check how we feel by checking if our muscles which we take as self are tense and not relaxed or not tense and relaxed.
When we are relaxed they are not tense, when we are stressed they are tense. It makes sense to us that this sensual experience of muscles is representing our state therefore it is image of us.
Issues arise when we consider these experiences as arbiters of action and perception. Check everything that comes to senses and action through it.

It isn't even that people unlearn this - even 'arhats' check everything through this experience. It is obvious by how they talk about it. 'There is no self therefore no dukkha' they say.
I say its an image that is useful from evolutionary standpoint. There are better feedback systems - not so much better than they are also not destroyed if someone cannot understand what experience of muscles is. Sense of self exists because other senses of self were devastated by ignorance.


Thinking is strong word. We need to learn how to think correctly. People think about things they feel and often confuse the two. Whether their thinking process is sufficient to have good ideas is different matters. Usually thoughts that arise are caused by perceptions/feelings which are negative because they tense up trying to solve the issue. It takes level of dissociation from sensual experiences when thinking (and even thoughts themselves!) to arrive at models which then can be used to create even better models. It cannot be like it usually is that person rushes thoughts to completion of an issue just to relax muscles which they take as themselves. It is called identity views and people don't drop them - they just figured out way to make experience different enough to be able to claim it is gone. I would say it is not gone because somehow it doesn't change the way they are thinking. Broken perception of it is more like it.


True
Then they practice and through practice arrive at brilliant realizations/insight that horse is not real and cart always moved itself. It was always sled pulled by pack of dogs who thoughts of themselves as a horse. Now they are covered by blanket to not be seen. Some push, some pull but person focus more on if they see what is moving the cart but not because they care - only thing they care is to not see anything.


It is invented to refer to something.
That something it refers to is by itself an illusion but like I said an useful illusion. It is however confusing because the priority is in the wrong place. Confused person who don't know how to see sees then this illusion and gets confused. Trying to fix it by removing it they only cause themselves suffering. Trying to fix it they blind themselves even more. Especially with delusion about success in not having something that never needed this kind of fix.

Personally I can have my sense of self as I always did. I don't rely on it and I don't rely on any particular feedback systems. Mind knows what to do, how to behave and how to communicate. There is usually just consciousness of what has been done presented in a way which is compatible with consciousness which might want/need to know. If that is 'sense of self' then its sense of self. Consciousnesses of experiences caused by its activity which is mediated by muscle tension are aware of encoding system used - compression of sorts. Dare I say phase modulation. There is no need for one activity in the brain to shout over another activity and demand attention to itself by going into overdrive.

And this last thing is what the issues people have with sense of self - it screaming because it learned that otherwise it will be ignored. People are screaming. When someone who supposedly eliminated sense of self screams with it at you then it looks silly. If it itself screams it doesn't exist because if it dared to exist it would be a bad time it is even more silly. It is terrifying and not at all inspiring.

I don't claim to have any self eliminated. If anything I gained more of them. I am also not screaming, my voice is still timid. It is raised. Ideally there should be ever need for it to be raised. I know however that using faculty which people are confused about is silly. It is used because this one at least people know they have. Confused about it but they can at least experience it. Understand? No... its encoded.

There are other faculties. Other means. Screaming is a bad idea. Raising voice while still being relatively calm is the good idea though.


Well said! Couldn't say it better myself ;)

I was always fascinated by that person encodings. He knew how to bamboozle the mind to be his ally when its the same mind which he intended to do cessation of.

Encodings?
People really didn't learn how to read poetry.
They read prose. Make it look like poetry they will read prose.
Make it prose they won't read it if its transcribing poetry as it invites doubt to mind and it invites poetry itself.

excerpt from


‘Lines Composed a Few Miles above Tintern Abbey, On Revisiting the Banks of the Wye during a Tour. July 13, 1798’ 
​​​​​​​
by william wordsworth



Though changed, no doubt, from what I was when first
I came among these hills; when like a roe
I bounded o’er the mountains, by the sides
Of the deep rivers, and the lonely streams,
Wherever nature led: more like a man
Flying from something that he dreads, than one
Who sought the thing he loved. For nature then
(The coarser pleasures of my boyish days
And their glad animal movements all gone by)
To me was all in all.—I cannot paint
What then I was. The sounding cataract
Haunted me like a passion: the tall rock,
The mountain, and the deep and gloomy wood,
Their colours and their forms, were then to me
An appetite; a feeling and a love,
That had no need of a remoter charm,
By thought supplied, not any interest
Unborrowed from the eye.—That time is past,
And all its aching joys are now no more,
And all its dizzy raptures. Not for this
Faint I, nor mourn nor murmur; other gifts
Have followed; for such loss, I would believe,
Abundant recompense. For I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes
The still sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue.—And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man:
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things. Therefore am I still
A lover of the meadows and the woods
And mountains; and of all that we behold
From this green earth; of all the mighty world
Of eye, and ear,—both what they half create,
And what perceive; well pleased to recognise
In nature and the language of the sense
The anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse,
The guide, the guardian of my heart, and soul
Of all my moral being.

Seeing the venerable Arahant namedrop DOPS makes me feel all warm inside. I've been a huge admirer of Stevenson and Tucker since high school. I'm now a UVA graduate student, and am well connected with researchers at DOPS. My personal practice is basically constructed entirely around the reincarnationist metaphysics of Stevenson and his successors. I can talk about it for days; if anyone wants to know about the field of childhood reincarnation case research, and how to build a pragmatic insight-esque program around it, I'm that guy.

Curiously, I go to UVA today, meeting with DOPS team members tomorrow regarding supporting their various projects related to their alliance with the EPRC https://theeprc.org.

Huh, maybe we'll occasion to meet there someday. Something I wanted to ask you, Daniel, was if you know what Tibetan lamas do in their practice to orient it toward manipulating reincarnation, as they're famous for. I'm developing a personal practice that is essentially that but taken extremely hardcore, i.e. has no aspirations to anything but optimizing reincarnation, but just refines that focus to a level that surpasses all possible obstacles. The closest thing out there to this is probably Tibetan practice, so I'd be interested to hear what they're doing right, and what they'd need to do harder, as they don't seem to wield the sort of power that shatters normalcy, which is what I need.

Critical to any sense of manipulating rebirth is holding the correct view, and the correct view is subtle, involving both the sense of the fact that there is nothing stable or separate to be reborn now or ever (emptiness) and also ultimate bodhichitta, that of awakened compassion. In Tibetan rebirth practices, they are actually very skillful means, in the right person, in the right context, with the right view, and done properly, to realize both aspects now as a result of the practices themselves. I mnight seek instructions both in theory and practice from a qualified teacher who can frame, support, and point to both aspects properly.

Sounds simple enough. Here's how I'd state those principles in my own words; you tell me how they line up with how the Tibetans view it.

I'd invoke the Orthogonality Thesis to state the practical significance of 1 (emptiness): a mind can be organized in an infinite number of permutations of traits, and realizing that the self is an empty construct void of meaning unlocks the ability to reorganize it as one pleases without restrictions of attachment. Thus, the practitioner can and must internally align their cognitive schemata for optimization as a user of reincarnation. We don't seem to be built by default to control reincarnation easily, or we'd all already know how it's done.

2 (compassion) seems simpler; the will to serve the good of the world by use of reincarnation must simply be absolutely pure, and supreme over all other desires. Although if someone wanted to be an asshole and use it in a totally self-serving capacity instead, and refuse to let anyone else play with their new toy, they perfectly well could as long as their intent was just as perfect. Something about metaphysics does seem to make things like money and status matter less to participants, though. But don't think for a second I'm not going to have fun being a hardcore reincarnator, either.

Sound about right? I'm glad you have some understanding of this, Daniel. Couldn't imagine anyone much better  to get advice from. Reincarnation researchers I talk to typically have no clue how I'm to proceed, so I have to draw my own conclusions.

It is not quite that the self is a construct void of meaning, it is that all meanings/interpretations and sensations, including those that involve "self" both perceptually and inferentially, are simply arising naturally, vanishing naturally, utterly transient, utterly interdependent, not separate, not stable, not in anyone's control, just naturally happening all together, knowing themselves all the way through, occurring where and as they do, utterly ungraspable or fixable, just part of the qualities that arise. 

It is not that we just serve the world, it is that compassion is baked into the experiential universe as the intrinsic motivation to reduce suffering. 

Again, these are inherent aspects of all experience, intrinsic, realizable, and worthy objects of practice. Again, a very skilled teacher offering personal instruction and training, particularly when it comes to systems that do elaborate practices related to rebirth, might be useful.

 
Greed for the manipulation of rebirth leads to continued suffering.

I can not say how much time it has taken for me to learn that lesson. It is one of the most brutal lessons I have had to learn. Desire for material and immaterial rebirth are fetters for a reason and underneath them is a whole knot of suffering. 

One is already as deep in rebirth as one could possibly be. I'm not poo-pooing the interesting, magical aspects of what's being discussed. I have over a decade of experience in both tantric and western magical traditions. 

... There's just only really one way to square the rebirth circle if you know what I mean

... And it's very easy to convince ourselves that we can choose to have intentions without greed and so on and thus convince ourselves we can do magical and tantric practices totally compassionately without negative karma or somehow avoiding rebirth in suffering

I'm not saying don't explore reincarnation but asking why is one reborn at all? By all means seek out a qualified Lama reincarnation wizard but I reckon you won't get far with them before they'll need you to answer this very same question.

 

It's only a fetter if you desire to escape suffering. I have no such wish. My practice is actually a dukkha farm. It intentionally cultivates the deepest sources of dissatisfaction into a wrath that burns away all possible obstacles to my objective and will finally grant me an eternal unrest. Satisfaction breeds inaction, and I abhor both. So you're 100% correct, Bahiya, and fortunately, that's ​​​​​​exactly what I'm in this for. I have a thread in the insight -> nonspecific section ( I assume this is the right place for proprietary practices) that explains it in depth. It's based on robustly established principles from reincarnation case data.

Speaking of which, I figure I ought to answer the thread question, "how can we know it's real?", with research knowledge. The answer is that the really strong child reincarnators not only have verifiable memories that they obviously deem their own, but they have concrete process knowledge that really makes it clear they know what they're talking about. They actually know how the act of reincarnating works, and most importantly, they all say pretty much the same stuff, across all cultures. It's a blessed little corner of metaphysical research where everything aligns just so and there's not a hint of ambiguity. If only it were all this easy.

That process knowledge and unequivocal identification with the memories is very evidentially important to me. There are a lot of rebirth-mimic phenomena out there that I don't think are the real McCoy. I think they're psi phenomena, remote-viewing type things. I see this turn up a lot in insight practitioners, and those mimics are probably what schools of Buddhism that aren't big on metaphysics are leaning on when they refer to some attenuated notion of rebirth. I think they're right on the mark about that. But the highly reincarnation-indicative, full autobiographical past-life and between-life memory retention also exists; it just almost never appears as a result of such practices. For the most part, the kids have a monopoly on that, although the powerful ones usually retain it as adults. I'm sure some of the kids are just manifesting psi phenomena too, but the ones who definitely aren't are super obvious, and there are more than enough of them in the dataset.

As for "why be reborn at all?" The majority of reincarnation-users do it for reasons of only temporal personal significance. I, for one, think this shortsightedness is rather a waste of such massive power to do immense amounts of good for the future. To be quite honest, I never asked to be part of a world where this whole mortality problem hadn't already been figured out. I guess that means I have no choice but to take matters into my own hands.

Daniel, 
​​​​​​​
There is this understanding of reincarnation as the rebirth of the self, the "me", each time we snap back into consciousness from our usual, ordinary state of being where consciousness is diffuse. At that moment there a crystallization of "me" here, interacting with "the world" out there. Then we return to the diffuse state and the "me" dies.
Each time a new "me" is born then it dies.
in enlightenment, the "me" dies for good and one brakes the cycle of birth and death and that is Liberation.

thoughts. 

NB1: I have seen the British Consciousness researcher and long time Zen meditator Susan Blackmore very briefly present this idea as a speculation but it did deeply resonate with me.

NB2: I just posted a thread titled "The Essence of Spirituality And a Meditation Method" and would be hugely indebted if you have the time to comment/correct/elaborate/etc. (Whatever you deem appropriate).