The case of Sandika Tharanga.
Sandika showed a great fear of crackers and sudden noises. When he heard them he instinctively placed his hands on the left side of his chest. His parents explained this because of a gunshot he had received in his chest in his previous life which had caused his death. Besides, Sandika had a birthmark on his chest, small and dark, situated slightly to the left of the midline. It had been more prominent in his early years. In Sri Lanka there had been periods of political turmoil, particularly the Insurgence of 1971, in which a number of monks were killed.
Haraldsson met Sandika in 1988, when he was eight years old, and his memories were already fading, as usually happens in these cases. His main interests were visiting temples and attending school. He was always very religious and tried to convert his parents to Buddhism, but they didn’t comply. He was eager to find the monastery where he had lived, and his father took him to six-seven temples when he was three-four years old, but he didn’t recognize any of them.
Like many other children who remember past lives, Sandika told his mother she wasn’t his real mother, and asked to be taken to his monastery and to his previous mother’s place. Another behavioral signs included picking flowers and placing them on a bed or chair before the worship, as there was no altar in his house. He also chanted stanzas and worshipped as Buddhists do, though his parents didn’t remember which stanzas were as they didn’t pay much attention or understood the words. From the age of three he would worship two to three times a day, at six he still offered flowers to a picture of Buddha which was put up in the house, and later he was given a statue of the Buddha. In 1996 there was one image of Buddha displayed in a prominent place in the house, and Sandika had recently placed another one elsewhere. Also, he would ask his family to give alms to monks; he didn’t eat meat; he got especially high school marks in Buddhism and asked his parents not to cut his hair (because his hair was always cut in his previous life and now he didn’t want that).
Sandika never expressed the wish to become a monk again. In 1996 he was still interested in Buddhism and frequently visited temples, but he had no intention of becoming one.
The case of Gamade Ruvan Tharanga Perera.
From a very early age Ruvan never asked for toys, only for pictures of Buddha, which he collected lovingly. He sat in a lotus position when they went to the temple, something no one had taught him to do. Other unusual behavior was: he wanted to wear a monk’s robe and he knew how to put it on; he knew how to hold the fan while chanting; he didn’t want to eat at night and tried to discourage his family from doing so (monks must not have meals from noon until next morning); he didn’t eat meat or fish, as some monks do; he recited the Buddha’s first sermon; he wanted his family to perform a puja in the evenings and scolded them from not doing so; he didn’t like to sleep with his mother, and told her monks don’t sleep with women. He also recited stanzas in Pali.
A local reporter learned about the case and published an article in 1993, when Ruvan was six years old. A monk and some laymen associated to the temple read it and a few days later they traveled to meet Ruvan in person. They asked him about his memories and tested him to see if he could recognize some of them. Some members of the group were convinced Ruvan had been the previous abbot of the monastery, Ganihigama Pannasekhara, who had died in 1986. However, one of the monks who had been disciple of the abbot remained skeptical because Ruvan didn’t recognize him and he didn't know the name of the previous abbot.
Another disciple of the abbot, who had been also his nephew, accompanied by other two monks, visited him a bit later as well, but Ruvan didn’t recognize them either, and told them he was the reincarnation of a lesser monk. One of them began to wonder if Ruvan was referring to the life of a young monk from Pitumpe, called Pannagula Nanavasa, who died around 1986. This monk remained in Pitumpe two years, then disrobed and died two years later. His personality didn’t resemble Ruvan’s and he didn’t seem deeply committed to Buddhism.
When Ruvan went to visit Pitumpe monastery, they arrived to the shrine room and there Ruvan pointed to the statue of the monkey made of clay, which was not prominently placed. He said, “That is the monkey I told you about”. In the room of the present chief monk, there were two large framed photographs, each of one monk. Without being asked, Ruvan pointed at one of them and said: “This was the chief-monk”. That photograph was indeed of Ganihigama Pannasekhara, the former abbot of the monastery.
In his school, Ruvan was very popular and used to preach to his class mates. He used to sit in an elevated position, while the rest sat on the floor, according to tradition. In his sermons he always taught them the importance of behaving well. They said Ruvan never got angry. He had been a class leader, and when the pupils were asked if they would like to have another pupil as a class leader, they replied no, they preferred Ruvan. Ruvan left school eventually, and entered a monastery to become a monk. In 1996 he was ordained in a temple in Rajgama. The abbot told the researchers he was different from the other child novices, he was calmer, had a better memory and much greater knowledge of Buddhism.
Though the case is not considered as solved, it is stated in the article that Ganihigama Pannasekhara is the person that is believed to be the one Ruvan is referring to. He is a better fit for Ruvan’s statements than other monks who have lived in Pitumpe in recent times. I don’t share this opinion, as I don’t see any clear sign pointing to that direction. I think that, had he been Pannasekhara, Ruvan wouldn’t have said he was a lesser monk, and he would have recognized himself in the photograph. Maybe he was in Pitumpe in older times, who knows? Nevertheless, despite the fact Ruvan couldn’t recognize close people in his past life, nor were his claims very specific, his behavioral signs leave no doubt, in my opinion, that he had a past life as a Buddhist monk and that he was in Pitumpe monastery at some point in his life.
Conclusions.
- Not all children who remember past lives give specific data that make possible the identification of their previous identity.
- Not all children who remember past lives had violent deaths and that trauma is the cause for their recall.
- No one (neither child nor adult) who remembers, necessarily wishes to continue from where they left it. Some do, others don’t. We don’t reincarnate because we have “unfinished business”. The reasons for which we reincarnate are as varied as people existing in the world.
- Some children forget when they reach the age of five, six, eight. But there are many people who still remember when they are adults.
- Neither children nor adults have to recognize people they met in their past lives. It can happen... or not. And this means nothing.
- Spontaneous memories are not necessarily more informative or have better quality than those obtained through other techniques.
- A better memory doesn’t ensure a past life can be verified. There are many factors influencing here, from how good the researcher is, to how much time has passed since the alleged last incarnation, to the availability of historical records or how much things have changed in the place the person remembers.
- But above all, I think we must give behavioral signs the importance they deserve. Also in adults. If we are observant, we will realize the origin of some of our attitudes or thoughts could be found in a past more remote than we think. And no, this is not far-fetched at all...
References:
Haraldsson, E. and Samararatne, G. October 1999. Children Who Speak of Memories of a Previous Life as a Buddhist Monk: Three New Cases. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 63, No 857, pp. 268-91.