Former Christian, technically still an ordained priest of the Latter Day Saints.
Currently resides somewhere closer to Buddhist beliefs, and is a firm believer in reincarnation.
Reporting, as much as that matters.
As a believer in reincarnation, what is it you believe reincarnate? our soul, meaning a distinct entity that gets reborn into another human being? what gets carried on through this distinct entity (or in other words, what are the qualities and characteristics of this entity)?
Yes, I believe that there is some form of "soul" that persists between incarnations.
To better explain it: I believe that the "purpose" of life is simply to learn. There are many religions that believe this. In any case, it's not possible, in any sense, to learn all there is to know, or even all that you want to know, within a single lifetime.
So I do believe that there is some form of knowledge or information that resides within the soul, that could possibly be transfered to the present physical body. (Whether you'd realize it happening or not wouldn't really matter)
Obviously, though, you wouldn't remember them, because your ability to learn is skewed when you have prior experience, because you already think you understand how it works, and aren't as open to new ideas, as if you had a blank slate for your memory.
As I imagine it will inevitably be asked where souls come from, the Bhagavad-Gita (One of the many book of Hindu scripture, but it shares a lot of beliefs with Budhisim) does a better job of explaining than I could do, in that it explain that just as God is immortal, and has always existed, with no beginning, so too has every person's soul, always having been.
Sorry for the VERY late reply. finally someone brings some of the eastern wisdom into here! i have read the bhagavad gita few times over the years and while its quite a straight forward text, i can't even pretend i truly understand half of it. the birthless, deathless, unchanging characteristics of the soul in the bhagavad gita does not support your belief. a birthless, deathless, unchanging nature of the soul means it can not learn, since new knowledge, or new experiences are "qualities" of the ever changing mind and are its constructs. what changes the mind is the knowledge, the "soul" stays the same. it also says in the bhagavad gita that the Mokasha is when one fully realize his soul is one and the same as the Absolute one that is in everything which kinda negates the notion of individual knowledge that is passed through the soul between bodies. i am aware that the text also point to some sort of transmigration between bodies, but i have not understood what is it that transmigrates.
If you take the "selfless" view of the east, then each thought/concept that floats before "your" consciousness is temporary and less you than a drop of water is a river and in the same sense, its just as you as the drop of water is the river. so the thought, concept or cloud of concepts that passes to others (A-la Dawkins Memes) is something of you that got reborn in another person.
Speaking of Moksha / spiritual experiences / enlightenment and psychadelic drugs, U.G kirsnamurty, who described his own Moksha not as enlightenment but as a calamity (That is if you believe him that he has been enlightened, which is very understandable if you don't since he generally just fools around and nowhere near what you would expect from a spiritual man), because he said it destroyed "Him" completely and that its the last thing "anyone" would want, said that all the spiritual exercises are useless since you can just take a shroom and achieve exactly the same thing without all the hassle and time wasting. he maintains that if we ever invent machines that make us reach those experiences then there is no reason not to use those since the "way" to the experiences is utterly meaningless and that those experiences has nothing to do with the enlightenment.
I mean it kinda fits with the Holy Spirit but there are a few bits in the bible specifically speaking about god and his interactions (see Job? IIRC) which mean he's not mans conciliate as but his own entity
The book of job is part of the "Writings", especially what is considered the "Poetic" books, meaning, there is a very high chance its all a fable rather than attempt at historic recording.