Would you like to win 200,000 dollars?What does one have to do for that? One has to prove the existence of the soul after death.Oh, yes, yes, I know - that article.... "A $ 200,000 reward has been offered to anyone on this earth who can give some scientific proof of a soul of a human body which leaves at death. This was found in the will of James Kidd, an Arizona miner who died in 1951. Lawyers executing the will claim that if no real scientific proof is submitted the money will go to any research institute aimed at proving the existence of the human soul." ["The Hindu," October 26, 1966]Some people already have their argument ready, I've heard. A proof ... what they want is a scientifically demonstrated proof. But in the first place, are they really referring to the soul? You understand, they are all in a terrible confusion: for them, the soul is just anything. Do they want to prove the existence of the soul, which is eternal, immortal, or the existence of an afterlife? The two things are different. Afterlife has been scientifically proved by cases: there have been quite a few cases of people who in their present life carried on with their previous life. There was the story of that father who died, and the child of a neighboring family gave extraordinary details, things that the dead father alone knew. He alone knew them, and as soon as the child was able to move independently, that is, at the age of five or six, he started trying to lead his former life again; he would say, "My children are waiting for me in that house, I must go and look after them"! He was a child, yet he said, "My children are waiting for me over there." And that house was where he had died. There were quite precise details that the dead father alone knew: he would say, "But I put that here, why did it go?" All kinds of things like that. This is a fairly recent case. There have been at least four or five recorded cases, therefore there is an afterlife. But what is it that lives after? Of course, in the case of that child, it's not the soul, it has nothing to do with the soul: it's beings of the Vital [[Mother does not mean "beings" in the sense of entities, but levels of being. ]] (the mentalized vital) that remained intact and, because of some special circumstance, reincarnated immediately. So their previous life was still "quite fresh." The case of that child seems to me scientifically indisputable because they can't say, "He is mad," or "It's a hallucination" - he is a child and he speaks of "his children." There have been other cases as convincing as this one (I don't remember them). But is this what they want to know? Or do they want to know whether there is a soul and whether it is immortal and ... In reality, they don't know anything. It's a question put by ignorant people. They should be told in the first place, "Excuse me! Before asking questions, you should study the problem." page 253-54 , Mother's Agenda , volume 7 , 3rd Nov - 1966 |