Birth and rebirth

Update, June 25: I mistakenly attributed quotes from Testimony of Light to a different book by a different author. The error is corrected now. Thanks to Robert McLuhan for noticing the mistake. 

---

I've often commented on the biggest inconsistency in ostensibly channeled communications about the afterlife — the question of whether or not spirits reincarnate. The same concern shows up in Stafford Betty's worthwhile book The Afterlife Unveiled, which consists largely of excerpts from channeled material.

Betty, a PhD in Theology, teaches religuous studies at California State University and has a special intetest in mediumship. In his concluding chapter, Prof. Betty writes: 

I wish I could report that there was unanimity on this very important subject [of reincarnation], but the facts don't permit it. This lack is the main reason I leave open the possibility, however slight, that this entire literature could be coming from the subconscious beliefs of mediums rather than from spirits. There are many reasons for thinking otherwise, and they impress me far more than this lone thorn among so many flowers growing together harmoniously, but there is no denying the prick.

Still, Betty's own book showed me that explicit references to reincarnation are found in some of the oldest modern mediumistic accounts. It does not appear to be the case, as I'd previously believed, that reincarnation scarcely makes an appearance in the older messages but starts appearing regularly in the more recent ones. Instead, there seems to have been a certain tension over this issue right from the start. 

I was already somewhat aware of this, having read The Spirits' Book (free PDF here). This well-known volume was compiled by Allan Kardec and originally published in 1857, not too long after the modern Spiritualist movement began. Kardec's communicating spirits make no bones, so to speak, about reincarnation, which they view as a natural part of any spirit's evolution. 

Asked, "How can the soul that has not attained to perfection during the corporeal life complete the work of its purification?", the spirits answer: "By undergoing the trial of a new existence…" Additional questioning brings out the clarification that the new existence must be a physical one:

The soul, in purifying itself, undoubtedly undergoes a transformation; but, in order to effect this transformation, it needs the trial of corporeal life… we all have many such existences. Those who maintain the contrary wish to keep you in the same ignorance in which they are themselves… In each new existence, a spirit takes a step forwards in the path of progress; when he has stripped himself of all his impurities, he has no further need of the trials of corporeal life.… he who advances quickly spares himself many trials. Nevertheless, these successive incarnations are always very numerous, for progress is almost infinite. 

Returning to Stafford Betty's book, we find a discussion of reincarnation in his chapter on the 1914 book Letters from the Afterlife, in which Elsa Barker channeled Judge David Hatch. The discarnate Hatch tells us: 

You should get away from the mental habit of regarding your present life as the only one, get rid of the idea that the life you expect to lead on this side, after your death, is to be an endless existence in one state. You could no more endure such an endless existence in the subtle matter [of Hatch's world] then you could endure to live forever in the gross matter in which you are now encased. You would weary of it. You could not support it…

I could probably force the coming back [to earth], but that would be unwise, for I should then come back with less power than I want… it is better for me to rest in the condition of light matter until I have accumulated energy enough to come back with power. I shall not do, however, as many souls do; they stay out here until they are as tired of this world as they formerly were tired of the earth, and then are driven back half unconsciously by the irresistible force of the tide of rhythm. I want to guide to that rhythm…

When the soul enters matter, preparing for rebirth, it enters potentiality, if we may use such a term, and all its strength is needed in the herculean effort to form the new body and adjust to it.

Hatch goes on to explain that “the tendencies of any given life, the unexplained impulses and desires, are in nearly all cases brought over" to the new incarnation, though specific memories are usually forgotten. 

Another thing I noticed when reading The Afterlife Unveiled is the sharp similarity between some channeled accounts and the accounts given by the hypnotically regressed patients of Michael Newton and other therapists interested in between-lives memories. Typically, these patients describe an afterlife environment that is more abstract and unearthly than "Summerland" accounts, while saying that their own bodily forms are essentially patterns of light and color. 

As I wrote in an older post, 

There also is very little discussion [in Newton's accounts] of what has been called Paradise or Summerland -- the earthlike environment of the afterlife, featuring gardens, meadows, houses, birds, etc. Some of Newton's subjects do recall studying in a beautiful library, but for the most part the afterlife environment, as they depict it, seems to consist of blobs of color (which are souls) zipping around in a rather abstract geometric setting. It reminds me a little of the old sci-fi movie Tron.

Newton's patients also report being part of a group soul — an organizational unit that allows spirits to learn from each other and make progress together. 

Compare all this with the discussion of reincarnation in another of Betty's sources — The Road to Immortality, channeled by Geraldine Cummins and published in 1932. (Complete text online here.) The communicating spirit, allegedly famed psychical researcher F.W.H. Myers, tells us that on the fourth spiritual plane the spirit acquires

a body entirely dissimilar from the human body. As regards appearance, it can only be described as being apparently a compound of light and colors unimaginable. The shape of this form is influenced by all the ego's past acts so far as they have impressed themselves on his deeper consciousness. This colored compound may be grotesque, bizarre in form, may be lovely beyond words, may possess strange absurdities of outline, or may transcend the loftiest dream of earthly beauty… 

Within the subtle world of which I speak you will perceive a variety of forms which are not known on earth and therefore may not be expressed in words. Yet there is a certain similarity, a correspondence between the appearances on this luminiferous plane. Flowers are there; but these are in shapes unknown to you, exquisite in color, radiant with light. Such colors, such lights are not contained within any earthly octave, are expressed by us in thoughts and not in words…

Betty summarizes the book's presentation of the group soul concept: 

Myers introduces us to the Group Soul, one of the hallmarks of the Fourth Plane. A Group Soul is “a number of souls all bound together by one spirit.” There are countless Group Souls, each headed and inspired by a single spirit of uncommon power. Each Group Soul might contain as few as 20 souls or as many as a thousand. And there is some unifying interest, for example music, that acts as the thread that binds the group together.… Most Group Souls significantly quicken progress. Myers is himself a member of one: “The interesting feature of my state here is that I am within a larger mind, and many of my affinities are contained in it.” He tells us we will “realize how fine and beautiful is this brotherhood within the one being; how it deepens and intensifies existence; how it destroys the cold selfishness so necessary to an earth life.”

Of special interest is the economy of the Group Soul. Each soul is so privy to the experiences of its fellows that the lessons normally learned only by a succession of many reincarnations can be speeded up. It works like this:

“… what the Buddhists would call the karma I had brought with me from a previous life is, very frequently, not that of my life, but of the life of the soul [in my group] that preceded me by many years on earth and left for me a pattern which made my life. I, too, wove a pattern for another of my group during my earthly career. We are all of us distinct, though we are influenced by others of our community on the various planes of being.”

Myers tells us he will not reincarnate. The surrogate experiences of his brothers and sisters, which he feels with as much intensity as if he were the actor, are teaching him all the remaining lessons of earth needed for his advancement.

Another point made by Newton's patients is that they plan out their earthly lives before birth, even choosing their parents. Yet the vicissitudes of life and the vagaries of free will mean that the plan — mostly forgotten by the conscious mind while incarnated — is often not carried out successfully. This idea is paralleled in Betty's excerpts from Testimony of Light (1980), by Helen Greaves, a book of material purportedly originating with a deceased nun, Frances Banks. Note that Greaves' book was published 14 years earlier than Newton's first book, Journey of Souls. 

Here is how the life plan is described by "Frances Banks":

Somewhere in the deeps of my mind two ‘blueprints’ are brought forward into my consciousness. These are so clear that I can (literally) take them out, materialize them and study them. One is the Perfect Idea with which my spirit went bravely into incarnation. The other is the resultant of only a partially-understood Plan… in fact my life as it was actually lived… First of all the mind looks at the whole comparison, and sets the blueprints side-by-side. This is the first shock; a true humbling of yourself to find that you did so little when you would have done so much; that you went wrong so often when you were sure that you were right. During this experience the whole cycle of your life-term unfolds before you in a kaleidoscopic series of pictures. During the crisis one seems to be entirely alone. Yours is the judgment. You stand at your own bar of judgment. You make your own decisions. You take the blame.… You are the accused, the judge and jury.

Readers of Newton's accounts obtained from hypnosis sessions will find this description strikingly familiar.

And here is Frances on the group soul: 

Whilst I was meditating in my golden garden, I found myself ‘transported’ to… a cluster of entities about a Teacher. Immediately I experienced a rise of consciousness, an upsurge of joy, a mingling of unity and harmony which colored my hole being. I cannot explain this in any of the terms, though I doubt whether they will have the same connotation for you. I knew this was right for me. I had come into my own. There was no definite acceptance, the entire operation was unobtrusive and simple, yet I had the conviction that all was well, that I was amidst my fellow-travelers on the Way.

This "upsurge of joy"and sense of belonging are typical of the reactions of Newton's hypnotized patients, often expressed in highly emotional terms. 

Finally, it's worth mentioning a little-known channeled book called The Afterlife of Leslie Stringfellow, which Betty discusses in one of his early chapters. Stringfellow died in 1886. Thereafter, his mother obtained fifteen years of mediumistic communication allegedly from him. Eventually she wrote up the best of these and published just one hundred copies of the resulting book, which she called Leslie's Letter to His Mother. Betty writes, "Leslie's Letter to His Mother was lost to the world until a librarian at the University of Arkansas, Stephen Chism, stumbled across a copy and was so intrigued by it that he undertook to bring it out in a new edition (2005) with the title The Afterlife of Leslie Stringfellow." 

What does Leslie say about reincarnation? I'm not sure. I did not see it mentioned in Betty's overview, but in his last chapter, Betty reports, "One of our seven sources (Benson/Borgia) says nothing about [reincarnation] and even implies that it doesn't occur. The other six do mention it, and five of those six endorse it."

"Benson/Borgia" refers to the famous book by Anthony Borgia, Life in the World Unseen* (1956). Presumably, then, the Stringfellow book does contain some discussion of reincarnation — and given its early date and near-total obscurity, I'd be interested to know what it says. So I've ordered it. (Amazon sells only used copies, starting at $95, but the book is available from the publisher for $14.95.) 

It should be noted that even some contemporary channeled material throws cold water on reincarnation. The Risen, by August Goforth and Timothy Gray, quotes its discarnate coauthor as stating emphatically that reincarnation does not occur. 

So what can we conclude from all this? First, reincarnation has been part of Spiritualist literature from early days, and is not a later accretion inspired by the Theosophy and similar movements. Second, there has never been unanimity on this issue. Third, there are interesting parallels between some channeled material and the accounts of between-lives hypnotic regressions. 

If reincarnation is a fact, it would seem most likely that the group soul concept is intimately connected with it, and that the whole process is more subtle and complex than it might appear. The channeled material attributed to Seth and to Silver Birch tends in this direction also.

Voltaire may yet be proved correct in his observation: "It is not more surprising to be born twice than once; everything in nature is resurrection."

---

*By the way, I should note that Borgia's book, Life in the World Unseen, has always read like fiction to me. Prof. Betty's summary of the book does nothing to change my impression. 

Comments

[Avery Morrow]

Perhaps those souls which deny reincarnation actually have a personal or cultural distaste for it, although I've never seen a source say this explicitly. The parapsychological evidence is stronger in favor of reincarnation than for any other phenomenon I know of.

[Michael Prescott]

FYI, I did order the Stringfellow book from the publisher for $14.95 + $5 shipping. Not sure why Amazon sells only used copies, at a hugely inflated price. Why would anyone pay $95 and up for a used copy when you can buy a new one for so much less?

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

Great post. What kinds of things does The Risen say against reincarnation, and how credible do you find that testimony?

[Sleepers]

I don't think we can doubt the existence of reincarnation, but the discrepancies among communications are strange.

I think our general assumptions are that everyone who "crosses over" is given enlightenment about what happens to everyone when they die. While reincarnation may be possible for some, and even encouraged, there is no reason for others to do the same - such as Myers with the Group Soul environment. As many communicators tell us, we shouldn't be surprised when we find that those who were abrasive, mean, funny, annoying, etc, share that same quality when they get to the next realm.

I would think - the focus of a communicator (and the one receiving the communications) is not simply "do you come back?" but is more concerned with "what's going on over there?" An emphatic denial of reincarcation may mean that the communicator simply knows nothing about it because 1) it is unneeded for their particular growth and 2) that knowledge has not been presented to them by the particular "souls" he is in contact with. Nobody in his "group" has a need to be reincarnated and nobody knows anything about it. Similar to how nobody in my profession knows a thing about rocket science. Heck, I don't even know if there is a "rocket science".

But, in a nutshell, I think its ok to assume that if personality and knowledge is not lost in the next world, people can still be skeptical about one area of survival research when they "cross - over."

And I guess that means Paul-Wu will still be "trolling" us as well. Without changing his screen name. And still trying to convince us ridiculous we are.

[someone]

Don't many Christian NDErs see something of reincarnation in their accounts of of the other world?

[Kathleen]

Interesting, but don't most people have enough opportunity to "perfect" their souls during one lifetime - that is, presumably learn to be kinder, more compassionate, merciful, etc.? It seems wearisome and pointless. I prefer Borgia's view in "Life in the World Unseen," where one can still redeem themselves even after they've died with a change of heart.

Someone, I'm not sure about Christian NEDers mentioning reincarnation, but I was surprised to see a Christian channeler and their Christian subject (deceased) very much state that there is reincarnation.

[Paul]

Avery, I am curious about why you think the evidence for reincarnation is stronger than for any other phenomena?

[Matt Rouge]

Here is some of my own channeled information.

I was in a channeling class, and I made contact with one of my previous incarnations, one to whom I feel very close. She appeared to me and said, "I'm still alive." For one of the few times in my life I felt the divine love, the kind that NDErs talk about, coming from her to me. It was overpowering, and I almost had to push it away (but did not) feeling, "I don't deserve this."

This struck me as a pretty clear indication that our incarnations do not disappear in the Afterlife. The teacher of the class said that everything is happening all at once, so that is why she is still "there." I certainly think that is part of it.

I think the group soul or soul family concept is another part of it. I am an incarnation of the Higher Self, just as she was around 1782 to 1840. I carry the memories and karma (not quite the right word--soul vector?) of her and our other incarnations, but they all continue to exist.

Depending on your definition of reincarnation, you could say that reincarnation does not happen, that only memories are passed on, etc.

[no one]

"I think our general assumptions are that everyone who "crosses over" is given enlightenment about what happens to everyone when they die."

very shaky assumption, IMO

[Sandy]

I agree with Matt. I recently had the experience of talking to a ghost that told me he was coming back as another child of his own father. He said that even after he is reincarnated, he will still be able to communicate with me as a ghost. I didn't think that made any sense, but he says it makes sense to him.

I don't usually try to figure out how the afterlife works. It's hard enough figuring out how this life is supposed to work. But that was what I was told, for whatever it might be worth.

[passenger]

why you think the evidence for reincarnation is stronger than for any other phenomena?

Because it's hard to objectively dismiss reincarnation.

NDEs are often explained away by low oxygen, DMT, etc

Reincarnation is a bit different. We have a child who states X and researchers can determine if X is real or not.

The only argument skeptics have against reincarnation is that it's fraudulent. Kids are making stuff up, they're lying to get attention, or they're lying to get benefits from TV or book deals.

While this latter may be true in western countries, eastern countries lack this. In India it's apparently normal for children to talk about their past life. But these children gets no book signing or TV show.

So to conclude my random ranting, reincarnation is stronger because it can objectively be proven. It's hard to prove "I had an NDE and saw god" but it's easy to prove "I was once a carpenter, my name was X, I lost 3 fingers on a job site, and my wife and children names are ____."

[Jack]

The Afterlife of Leslie Stringfellow."
I like this little book. It seems to be a very "natural" exposition.
I don't remember seeing anything about reincarnation in it.
I believe Conan Doyle said something to the effect that:
reincarnation, if it happens, only happens after a long time.Let us take one step at a time.

If we cross over to the next world as we are,( i.e. we don't suddenly become wise) it is inevitable that there will be as many different beliefs there,at first, as there are here.
Summerland is the 2nd level; Myers was giving information about the 4th level.

[no one]

But Matt and Sandy, we have cases such as those researched and recorded by Ian Stevenson where the children claim and present some very convincing evidence - right down to birth marks - to be/have been the actual deceased person; not some member of an esoteric group soul. Ditto James Lenienger and a few other cases outside of Stevenson.

The birth marks seem to me to be suggesting that it is the exact same personality, or mental body, in a new physical body. Occam's razzor and all.

[Matt Rouge]

Friggin' typepad italics curse...

no one,

I don't see any contradiction with what you wrote and I wrote. I *do* believe in reincarnation.

[Sandy]

No one, I didn't say reincarnation couldn't occur. But I think you can be more than one "you" at a time. Both a discarnate "you" and a living "you". This idea of linear time is just what we are used to in this life. Timeless was what my NDE was like, with a now that was both really small (right now) and really big (it's always and continually now, isn't it?). So why can't every person I've ever been or ever will be coexist in that timelessness?

[Michael Prescott]

I just wrote an email to someone who had a question about NDEs, and although the topic is different from reincarnation, I thought my (admittedly longwinded) answer might be somewhat relevant. The person was asking about those comparatively rare NDEs in which a living person shows up, and wondering if these cases undercut the reality of NDEs. I wrote:

My impression is that people see what they need to see (though not necessarily what they *want* to see). The Tibetan Book of the Dead says that the early stages of postmortem existence involve quasi-real figures and environments — not hallucinations exactly, but imagery reflecting the mindset of the experiencer. If you need to see Jesus (or still-living rapper Kid Cudi, as one person did), then that's who you'll see. The NDE seems to occupy a borderland between objective reality and subjective imagination. The same seems to hold true, by the way, for so-called alien abductions, which have much in common with NDEs. I don't think there are real, physical aliens abducting people, but there may be an element of the OBE that corresponds to this experience and which is (mis)interpreted as being physically real. Shamanic vision quests, often precipitated by ingesting hallucinogens, follow a similar pattern.

Probably the most helpful way of looking at it, at least for me, is to think in terms of the famous 19th century book Flatland, in which A.Square, a two-dimensional person who lives on a sheet of paper, is magically lifted up into the three-dimensional world. He finds the experience awe-inspiring and incomprehensible. When he returns to Flatland, he tries to tell his fellow Flatlanders about it, but his words make no sense to them, and they decide he is crazy.

(Text of Flatland: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ )

I suspect that the transition from this space-time universe to the "higher plane" of postmortem life is equally disorienting and equally hard to put into words or to encompass with our "limited" minds. A skeptic would say this is a cop-out, but really, why should we expect that we, as Flatlanders, can grasp higher dimensions unknown to us in our physical incarnation? The whole distinction between "real" and "unreal" may fail at a certain point, even though it is highly necessary here and now.

My guess is that the early stages of death, including what we call an NDE, are so disorienting to the mind that it does its best to make sense of it by coming up with familiar, and comforting, images and symbols. And since the creative power of the mind is much greater in the postmortem state than it is during physical incarnation, these imaginative leaps produce "real" people and environments. The committed Christian may find himself meeting Jesus or singing in a choir of angels, while the Buddhist may encounter Buddha and the Hindu may be greeted by Krishna. The mind does its best to smooth the transition and find safe ground. Later, after a period of R&R, the spirit may be better able to face this new environment and to process it. At that point he finds himself in a world of shared consciousness that is consistent and apparently "real." And it is real, yet by all accounts it's not the final or highest reality, and from a higher perspective it will appear dreamlike, just as our earthly world appears dreamlike to those who have transcended it.

Trying to nail down this phenomenon in simple either-or, black-and-white terms - the terms of objective reality as understood in the physical universe - is probably a hopeless task. It would be like trying to understand the physics of the 3D world in terms of Flatland's mindset. There's a natural inclination to try this, but I think it is self-defeating.

[Matt Rouge]

Nice answer, Michael.

It *is* rare for people in NDEs to see living people, but I don't think that's a problem unless the living people are represented as dead (i.e., there would be no content contrary to reality as we know it unless a living person were represented specifically as being on the other side). Now one could say that the rapper had to be a hallucination because that person was not actually participating in the "event." Yet I believe that I help people cross over in my dreams quite a bit, and it's possible that the rapper did the same thing in his dream.

More and more, I have sloughed the standard belief that dreams are just dreams, not real. I now think of them as OBEs taking place on the Astral Plane or elsewhere.

If we change our perspective on whether dreams are real or not, then we can (must?) also change with regard to the "reality quotient" of NDEs and other experiences. In a way, that's a sop to our opponents, who can just say, "See, it's all just a bunch of dreams and stuff!" In reality, however, it's the veridical content of NDEs that is going to convince people sitting on the fence; anything else can be dismissed as a dream anyway.

[no one]

Yes. Nice answer Michael. I see it pretty much the same way you do.

Matt and Sandy, it's been a while since I've read Steveson and I don't have his books (there's a nice collection at the University of Arizona library). So. I can't provide an accurate reference. Any how, in several cases the subject recalled the period between the death of the original personality and the rebirth of the personality being studied (as did Lieninger). There seems to be a 100% continuity. It's very linear.

Maybe the group soul thing comes into play at more advanced levels of consciousness - as ego boudaries disolve more maybe these connections become more apparent - but for the more typical consciousness it very much appears that a unique personality is pulled out of one body, spends a period of a few years in a disembodied astral realm that has overlap with our physical realm and then reincarnates as a complete and distinct unit.

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

On one level I agree with you. I can trace my incarnations back to the late 1700s, and it seems that the gaps between them are very narrow.

At the same time, however, I have an incarnation that is telling me that she is "still alive."

So I am saying, can't two things be true at the same time: That I continued the chain of incarnations and *am* she, but she also retains her own... self? There would seem to be no contradiction with what you say is true.

But I'm going to throw a further wrench in all this. We've talked a lot about functional entities on this blog. We've also talked about super psi and the possibility that when your friendly neighborhood medium is talking to dear departed Aunt Sally, he might really just be pulling her persona out of your mind, other people's minds, or the air itself. But what if we apply the functional entity concept here and suppose that there is no dividing line between "real" spirits and functional entities--they are *all* functional entities.

Now what if we further blow our minds and suppose that there is no dividing line between functional entities and what we are right now?

Thus, it could be that our past and current lives are all brought into being through intentional forces, in which case our past lives are simultaneous with our current lives to the extent that our intentions bring our past lives into being.

Now that is somewhat the negative spin on things, rather like the Twilight Zone episode of the guy in prison who is dreaming everyone around him into existence. The positive spin is that life and myth coexist in this very complicated Web, and within it we have an indestructible nature that can take many forms. Or as Emerson says in his poem "Brahma," "the subtle ways I keep, and pass, and turn again."

Here's one clue that's leading me in this direction. I have noticed that dreams are sometimes time-stamped in a funny way. A dream that I *know* I had years ago seems as though I could have had it last night. And then I ask myself, "What if the dream is not *in* time, and it makes no difference when I had it?" And that, I conclude, is the truth in some sense.

Similarly with incarnations. In some sense, they follow as a progression. In my fourth life ago, I am in Europe during the Napoleonic Wars. I did not know anything about TV, etc. But in another sense, those incarnations are all in a pool of being that is not time-stamped, so to speak.

[no one]

Matt, I could go along with all of that at least as a mental exercise. However, there is one issue that keeps coming to the forefront of my mind as a spoiler every time I get into one of these, "Maybe it's all happening at once" discussions.

That issue is free will.

If we are making choices that have an effect on not just the future, but who we are as spiritual beings, then there must be an element of linearity and progress.

This doesn't mean there has to be an unadultrated straight line. There probably are all kinds of feedback loops. Still there is directionality.

Unless you don't think we have free will. But that then opens a whole pandora's box that I think ultimately removes any sense of spiritual purposefullness and meaning from life.

[passenger]

@no one,

If we look at it from a materialistic standpoint, there is no such thing as free will. The brain creates the thoughts which in turn causes our action. So we can't really be responsible for anything we do.

But if we look at it from a spiritual version, free will exists. But this version of free will implies that we are somehow separate from the rest of society. No influence can be exerted on us and we can't exert any influence upon others.

In my opinion, both theories are flawed. I think we have a partial free-will existence. Friends, families, careers, etc all influence us in one way or another. Free will assumes that what we are doing is 100% our own. But in reality this is not true. Friends, families, community, etc all affect what we do and who we are. But the ultimate decision to engage in the action is in us. We decide if the action proceeds or not.

For example, why don't you use crack or heroin? It gives the best high and causes all pain and worries to disappear. You probably won't do it because of outside influences. Your family, friends, and community would probably frown upon such behavior.

However, the choice to use crack or heroin ultimately rest upon us.

In terms of spirituality, I don't think spirituality is necessarily free will. Rather, the free will is more like a choice of destinies.

[no one]

passenger, I think there is a fundemental free will and that it is critical to spiritual development.

Here's a hypothetical example of the kind of free will I am talking about: A man has a loved one, say a wife, who is suffering from a medical condition that makes her less of a wife than she was when they were first married and makes her a financial burden on the man. The man can stay with the wife and show her love and compassion and care for her and live a less materially satisfying life or he can divorce the wife and leave her to the disability system (say she has no other family) and he can go on to enjoy a materially gainful carer in another part of the country.

He has free will. He can choose. There are societal pressures toward either choice.

Here's another example: A man can tell a lie and gain financially and socially with the "in crowd", but the result of the lie is that many people will die (think Colin Powell) or he can tell the truth and lose his social and financial standing, but keep his integrity.

Heres another example: I have been wronged. It's done and over. I was hurt badly badly by the wrong deliberately inflicted on me by another. I can go for bloody revenge against the one who wronged me or I can forgive and move on. It's my choice.

Here's another example: It's a beautiful day. I can go outside and enjoy it and feel genuine happiness or I can sit around inside staring at soap operas on TV.

I guess maybe I don't understand your point. We are constantly faced with choices. This seems self evident to me. Some choices perhaps more pivotal - more "standing at the crossroads" material - than others, but the choices are daily, hourly, 24/7/365.

"For example, why don't you use crack or heroin? It gives the best high and causes all pain and worries to disappear. You probably won't do it because of outside influences. Your family, friends, and community would probably frown upon such behavior."

No. I do a lot of things that are outside of the approval of family (which I don't have much left of) and community (who I see as a bunch of dullards). I don't use crack because I think it is very dangerous, addictive and makes the user into a crazy zombie, which is something I don't want to be. I did smoke some fine grade heroine once just to have the experience. If I was ever in great physical pain or unbearable emotional pain and I needed brief respite, I'd probably use heroine, sparingly, for that purpose (I have some tragedies in my life and have not yet felt the need).

Perhaps to your point, I think that there is a reason most spiritual traditions involve a period of time, when the initiate is finding his/her path, that the iniate must leave family and society behind.

[Paul]

Thanks Passenger. I don't see how reincarnation evidence is any less vulnerable to objection than some other forms of phenomena, other than NDEs - which I agree with you on.

It seems to me that reincarnation evidence is often reliant on the notes of those recording the evidence and satisfying themselves that there is no fraud. Isn't that true for other phenomena such as different forms of mediumship for example?

[no one]

passenger, on further reflection, I guess I do know what you are saying about societal pressures and free will. It's just that, ultimately, I disagree that a self actualized - or spiritualy realized - individual has that as an excuse. In fact, I would say that overcoming societal pressures is one of the great challenges of the spiritual path.

On an extreme end of the spectrum, "I was merely following orders" just doesn't cut it.

That said, I do think that most people are just going through the motions that they've been taught. They seek security in the herd and confirmation in the eyes of the other members of their society.

[Robert McLuhan]

Interesting post, Michael. It's some time since I read up on this stuff. I recall at the time being mightily exercised over the reincarnation discrepancy. My sense now is that people who are in the next stage of life don't know much more than we do about such things, and continue to speculate, while those that are further on are more likely to say that reincarnation occurs. If it turns out the latter are just as divided, then my comfortable theory will be shot to pieces.

I haven't got around to Betty's book yet, but will do soon - there are some sources there that I didn't recognise. I'm puzzled by one of the quotes you give here, about the blueprints. I recognised it from Testimony of Light by Helen Greaves, as a channelled statement from her friend Frances Banks (p. 34). Not sure why Betty attributes it to this other chap.

best

Robert

[Juan]

About reincarnation, I think the strongest evidence is the children who seem to remember past lives, because once we have excluded fraud, the ordinary ways of knowledge and mere coincidence, as we are prima facie cases of reincarnated. Other hypotheses can be formulated paranormal but
non-reincarnation, but they all break the link between memory and personal identity, making them very implausible from the start.

One problem is that even if we accept these cases as cases of reincarnation, these data suggest that only some human beings reincarnate. So we must ask ourselves whether all human beings reincarnate though not remember our past lives, where mediumistic communications become relevant. But the evidence on mediumship indicates that people have the same beliefs and knowledge after death than before death, as wrote Sleepers, so we expect no uniformity of views and many simply do not know if reincarnation is universal or who is meant by reincarnation.

And about free will, is not true that free will is to act separately from the rest of the world, with nothing to influence us, but free will is to act for oneself without being determined by internal or external processes, although we are under the constant influence of the world. Free will is a necessary condition of all our actions, and although free will can not be proven, denying free will is as absurd as to deny that we are conscious beings or that there is the external world. Philosophers may deny some of these claims, but these denials though not logical contradictions are practical contradictions. And it is true that from the third person perspective of the natural sciences there is no free will or consciousness, but from the first person perspective from everyday life we ​​know we have free will and we are conscious. Only lately due to the rapid advance of natural science has led to the objectivist attempt to reduce or eliminate the subjective perspective, which of course will never get because both perspectives are equally necessary for the compression of the world and ourselves.

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

I definitely believe in free will (passenger has some great points, however).

I don't see the problem for free will in non-linear time. My previous incarnations still exist and have free will in their dimension, and I have free will in my current life.

Or am I missing something?

[passenger]

I think the strongest case against reincarnation are ghost hunters.

Let's say hypothetically that a soul/ghost does exist and it somehow can communicate via EVP. Why aren't these souls/ghost reincarnating?

just something to think about

[Matt Rouge]

Passenger,

I think it is widely agreed that ghosts are spirits trapped "here," in the physical dimension, who have not moved on to the Afterlife proper. Hence, they cannot reincarnate.

OTOH, to your point, I've never heard of a medium saying, "Beloved Departed could not be reached, as he has reincarnated."

[Matt Rouge]

As a side note, today our six-year-old daughter was talking today about meeting her departed great-grandmother in her dreams. And seeing many of the dead people in our family, especially from Japan. She even has met my wife's departed dog, which died before our daughter was born.

Meeting the departed in dreams is the real deal. It is clear that the dream world is "close" to the Afterlife. What I gather from sources is that the dream world is the Astral Plane (4th dimension) and the Afterlife starts at the 5th. It is a relatively easy "step-down" for the departed to visit us in our dreams.

[Michael Prescott]

"I'm puzzled by one of the quotes you give here, about the blueprints. I recognised it from Testimony of Light by Helen Greaves, as a channelled statement from her friend Frances Banks (p. 34). Not sure why Betty attributes it to this other chap."

I must have gotten the quotes mixed up. I'll fix it. It's my mistake, not Betty's.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

I also asked you about the testimony from The Risen and what you thought about it.

I'll tell you about my latest Michael Prescott read here so I can plug the book to everyone.

If y'all have not read one of Michael's thrillers yet, check them out! I just finished The Shadow Hunter, a great read. Abby Sinclair is a great character. I also found the villain, Raymond Hickle to be very well drawn. The psychological portrayal of the born loser and what motivates him is excellent. I suspect it's quite accurate how his filters distort the world to give himself a sense of self-worth that he can't find anywhere else. Did you research this or just go by gut on this?

What I really loved about the book was its pacing. Especially the third act. Just when you think it can't build any more, it does. Truly a book that was hard to put down. Well done, Michael!

[Sandy]

Someone recently suggested that I need to work on writing down more of my ghost experiences because others might benefit from reading them. I'm not sure if anything I have to say is very helpful though. Some ghosts do believe in reincarnation, and I know of two cases where the ghost has told me who he is coming back as. In one case the baby will be born this summer, so I guess I'll find out if the ghost can still visit me after the baby is born.

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks, Matt! The Shadow Hunter will be out in a new edition (trade paperback and Kindle) in September. I just went by my gut regarding Hickle. It's not as hard for me to assume the mindset of a born loser as you might think! :-(

Re The Risen, I had mixed feelings about the book, as the author's claims about the nature and frequency of his contact with his deceased friend strained credulity somewhat. But it does contain some interesting ideas and is clearly a labor of love. The communicator in The Risen simply says that he expected to be reincarnated but was told by others wiser than himself that this never happens. Supposedly some spirits who are deeply committed to the idea of reincarnation convince themselves that it is happening to them, essentially creating a dreamworld existence in a new incarnation, but eventually they wake up and realize they are fooling themselves. So ... take it for what it's worth. It goes against the grain of a lot of other testimony and some empirical evidence.

[no one]

"Or am I missing something?"

Maybe not, Matt. I don't know. It just seems like an overly complicated schema to me.

It is something I would need to think about with a clear mind and I don't have that right now.

My son is deploying to A-stan this Thursday. The mission is ill-equiped and poorly manned and would be dangerous even under the best logistics and supply (which, again, aren't in place). The Army is a F'ing bad joke wrapped in a worse political mess. In fact, the whole "war" is a ridiculous proposition born of imperial hubris and mil/industrial profiteering that should have been shut down years ago. My son - a decorated officer - doesn't believe in it either as he expressed in no uncertain terms once again to me earlier today. He is just doing his duty mostly because he doesn't have any viable options to get out of it. I have a bad feeling about it that I can't shake. His mother is besides herself. She knows the signs of FUBAR and he can't hide them from her despite his efforts.

This Fall we get to vote for elitist lying war mongering fascist #1 or elitist lying war mongering facsist #2.

Which one do you prefer?

I'm out of here for a while. I am looking to more earthly contemplations for the time being - like starting up an antiwar/truth in media type blog.

Best to all here.

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

Sorry to hear that. I will send the light of protection to your son.

I agree with you about the war and the candidates.

[Sandy]

No one, I'm sorry to hear about your situation. I'm retired military, so is my husband and my step-son is on basic training at this moment. We tried to talk him out of it, but he says it's what he wants. I'm not looking forward to his career the way he seems to be. Sometimes all you can do is hope (and pray) for the best.

[Michael Prescott]

I hope your son stays safe, no one.

[CLAUDIO PISANI]

Good article, Mike... as usual! According to your thinking, I can add that reincarnation is a "hot topic" also for Spirits. If you asked about it to a saint woman as Natuzza Evolo was, she denied the existence of reincarnation, because she was a Catholic Fundamentalist. In the other hand, a friend of mine who is a reseracher in the EVP's field, has had many contacts from a Catholic Bishop, Saint Erasmus from Formia, and in these contacts (done using the reversing tape method) the Saint told him that reincarnation does exist, even if it's not the right time to spread these news among illitterate people. Who's right? I think that the astral planes are very COMPLEX and their inhabitants very different among each others, as well as it happens here. BTW, according to the Spirit that we contact, we can get different answers about reincarnation or other topics.
My 2€cent worth thought!

[Sbu]

Hi Sandy, why did you start a new blog? Just curious..

[Sandy]

Sbu, the old blog was getting too much attention from people I didn't like very much. I like having a public blog, but I couldn't do anything to terminate some of the troublesome links to the old blog from a couple of sites that were sending me nastygrams every time I posted anything.

Moderation is fine, and I would expect to need it to use it every so often. But My old blog became such a target that it stopped being fun. I missed having a blog, so I quietly set up a new one. I'm hoping to be left in relative peace in my new space. I guess we'll see how it goes.

[passenger]

I know this is a bit off topic but I was reading an article today concerning the Hamel's study on the gay gene.

This led me to thinking about the materialistic paradigm.

1) if we have no free (libet's experiment) then all our acts are caused by our brain or genes

2)So wouldn't that mean that homosexuality is caused by the brain or genes?

3) it seems like every gene study on homosexuality has failed.

4) so wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the brain for one reason or another causes homosexuality?

This is not a gay bashing thread. This is something I've been wondering about for a while

[passenger]

I guess I'll relate my first topic to reincarnation.

In Ian stevenson's reincarnation study and liz Dale NDEs studies, it looks like sexuality itself is an illusion.

I remember reading in india or Thailand that many children come back as close family members but changes sex for some reason.

just something to think about

[Stafford Betty]

Michael, I was truly happy my book was so helpful. You wrote a splendid blog. I was especially pleased to read your comments on reincarnation in early Spiritualist literature. In his classic "History of Spiritualism," Arthur Conan Doyle wrote (in 1924), “On the whole, it seems to the author that the balance of evidence shows that reincarnation is a fact, but not necessarily a universal one.” That sums up my own feelings on the question and, I gather, yours as well.

[Michael Prescott]

Thank you, Prof. Betty! Yes, your book helped correct my longstanding misconception that reincarnation was scarcely mentioned in older Spiritualist literature, and that it entered the picture only when Theosophy popularized the idea.

In addition, I found the whole book very interesting and readable, and I enjoyed the excepts you selected, though I might have steered clear of Borgia myself.

Testimony of Light is possibly the best of all these channeled documents, and I appreciated the special emphasis you gave it.

[Stafford Betty]

Michael, Borgia's "Life in the World Unseen" was the one book of the seven I summarized that made me worry just a little. You say it reads like fiction, and at times I had the same feeling. The reason was that in some places it's more specific than other books coming to us from the spirit world. It has a different flavor. I especially have in mind the detailed description of how a building was constructed out of astral matter. In the end I decided to give Borgia the benefit of the doubt and include his book. Maybe Robert Hugh Benson, the spirit coming through Borgia, was just a world-class communicator. So I told myself; so I hoped. In any case, the ever-present possibility of fraud shows why it's important to read widely in this genre.

My recent novel "The Imprisoned Splendor" grew directly out of my research, and I was constantly worrying about how specific I should be in drawing my afterlife settings. The research didn't encourage it, but, as you know only too well, a novelist makes his living being specific and concrete. So on top of the many, many generalizations provided by the research, I had no choice but to invent the details. Research and fantasy are always uneasy allies, but especially when one is describing a world he has never seen. All this aside, the spiritual laws, astral landscapes, and types of people we meet over there came out fine. Let's just hope Borgia didn't go through the same process I went through.

[Sleepers]

no one- its hard hearing that stuff, and I truly hope the best for your son. there's really nothing comforting we can say or do in a time like that, especially for the reasons you gave. His sacrifice, and others like him, is deeply appreciated and should never be forgotten, no matter the cause or reason for being brought into it. A day will never go by where I don't think about it. Truly.

Matt - Your 6 year old - that's interesting. I'm curious to know whether you think your beliefs, practices, etc, have anything to do with why she has those dreams (or says that she does)? Playing devil's advocate - do you think it might have been put into her head that's its possible for her to communicate with the other side? I know you have very strong beliefs on that end - could a skeptic claim that she has been conditioned to dream and say those things?

Im asking these questions not knowing anything at all about your interactions with your child, but knowing how impressionable kids can be at that age. So, yes, I'm making very broad assumptions - and asking skeptic type questions, but am doing so because I am really curious about what you think of that argument.

[Matt Rouge]

Sleepers,

You wrote,

Playing devil's advocate - do you think it might have been put into her head that's its possible for her to communicate with the other side? I know you have very strong beliefs on that end - could a skeptic claim that she has been conditioned to dream and say those things?

She was talking at a young age about being reincarnated before we had *ever* discussed anything related to the afterlife. She says she saw herself "coming down into mommy," and talked about the world before this life.

She goes to a Catholic school, and we say of departed people that that person is "in heaven," but there has been no hot-housing when it comes to afterlife knowledge. :) We really don't talk about this kind of thing much.

There's no real reason for a 6-year-old to see a bunch of dead people at once in a dream unless one can really visit the Afterlife in dreams, which I'm personally quite certain is possible.

[Bruce Siegel]

"She says she saw herself "coming down into mommy," and talked about the world before this life."

Great stuff about your daughter, Matt. And you've got my curiosity up. What did she tell you about that world?

[Bruce Siegel]

"When he returns to Flatland, he tries to tell his fellow Flatlanders about it, but his words make no sense to them, and they decide he is crazy."

I love that you used this book in your explanation, Michael. Flatland is permanently installed in my brain as a way of grasping the futility of trying to understand the spiritual world while living in this one.

"When he returns to Flatland, he tries to tell his fellow Flatlanders about it, but his words make no sense to them, and they decide he is crazy."

I was just beginning to learn about NDEs when I read Flatland, and was startled at how closely A. Square's accidental journey to the the 3-dimensional world resembled an NDE, even in respect to its aftermath.

It's a very special book indeed, beautifully reconciling science and metaphysics.