Updates

6/9/06
If you want to know what's going on with me and the "In Another Life" project, see the previous "Update" for 5/31/06 (previous updates are listed at the bottom of the page in descending order). This is only going to be an essay on something I've understood--or thought I understood--for years, but has just come home to me with greater force. You know how an "ah-hah" experience is usually something that, when you say it, doesn't seem particularly profound? It's something you always knew, and probably a lot of other people knew as well. But the difference is it's alive for you, now.

Well, I've been corresponding with a skeptic, not about reincarnation per se but someone asking questions about my discipleship to my spiritual master, Meher Baba. He's written briefly in a historical book about Meher Baba, and is gathering material for another book about people who adopt "implausible beliefs" instead of sticking with the religion of their upbringing. He's been very respectful and reasonable, and I've tried to answer his questions as best I can. But it is as though we were speaking different languages. Everything I say he reinterprets to fit inside the framework of his materialism and skepticism; and everything he says, I likewise reinterpret in the light of my mystical point of view. Our assumptions are so radically different that nothing I say penetrates; and my little epiphany came when I directed him to a paragraph written by Meher Baba on the subject of the relationship between faith and reason. His response indicated that the point being made in that paragraph was quite literally invisible to him. I tried to explain, but it's clearly impossible. Everything I say about faith being the preliminary step to direct perception of a supra-physical reality, and to the development of a supra-rational faculty with which to perceive it, is falling on deaf ears. It makes no sense to him, because, as I gather, his subconscious mind processes the information before it even gets to his conscious mind; and that processing occurs based on certain "programs" or beliefs; and that system of beliefs precludes understanding the information correctly. In his world, all experience that is "irrational" is by definition "subrational." So, to him, it makes no sense to train oneself to use a faculty to perceive something beyond the rational mind, which is superior in clarity and depth to the mental functions of dividing, classifying, creating constructs, and so-on. "Supra-rational" is translated automatically and unconsciously to "irrational" with its immediate train of associations (such as to "hallucination," "delusion" and "nonconformity")--and the message I "encoded" and sent is "decoded" quite differently at the other end.

This brings me to a profound realization--that I am wasting my breath with this entire project. It is as though for lifetimes I have not quite been able to really get this lesson; and it has taken this huge, nearly ten-year effort to convince me. Reincarnation (as an example of a non-physical reality) is not something that can be explained to anyone, or shown to anyone. You can put clear evidence for reincarnation right in front of someone, and you can explain it with great clarity and force, and it makes no difference. Suppose your significant other is acting passive-aggressively. Suppose you try to point that out to him or her. Will he or she say, "Oh, I see what I'm doing now, thank you so much, I'll make an effort to change that right away?" Well, they might, if they are part of the 1% of the population who has trained themselves, with great effort, to respond this way. But 99% of the people out there will react defensively, and will not see it at all. What you are saying will be literally invisible to them, because the information will never reach their conscious mind in the first place. It simply isn't in their world.

All I really need for this project is a simple home page. In 60-point type, it would have the following words: "Read '20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarntion' by Dr. Ian Stevenson." That's all. I wouldn't need a link to Amazon.com, I wouldn't need any quotes, nothing. That would be enough.

Anything else would be useless, because people who can't get the hint and who don't have enough motivation to follow up on it, are not going to get it if they follow every single link on this (now rather massive) website, and watch my documentary five times. They will still conclude that reincarnation is imagination and fantasy.

So, then, who am I writing this to, and what does it matter? That's the paradox. If I really believed my insight, I would stop writing

6/16/06

Rather than start a new "Update," since this is going to be on the same topic, i.e., preaching to the choir, receptiveness, and whether there's any legitimate role for a "reincarnation eductor" at all, I'm going to add on to the previous one. Obviously I was "up to here" with frustration when I wrote the last one--and my mood didn't improve any when a former broadcasting executive in Canada gave feedback, through my distribution contact there, that he was an active member of a paranormal research society, had produced two films on similar topics himself, one of which was award-winning, and that, to paraphrase, he saw nothing special in my film compared with many out there on such topics; and further, that it had too many "talking heads" to be viable commercially. My poor Canadian distributor, Andrew, got an earful in several e-mails from me, and probably is quite sure at this point that I'm a looney (he commented that I must have a lot of ego about my film). Which I admitted is probably true to some degree. There is also passion and believing in one's work, which is not exactly the same as ego; and there is knowing when someone's feedback is--how shall I put it--that something isn't right about it, whether or not you can put your finger on exactly what it is.

Well, I started my spiritual search many years ago, a couple years out of high school, with the idea of testing the premise that the universe will try to teach you if you are paying attention. I'm beginning to get the sense that the universe is sending me little notes...the experience with the writer not understanding, or refusing to understand, what I was telling him, was one such note. The feedback by the supposedly knowledgeable former broadcaster who saw nothing special in "In Another Life" was another. Then, in rapid succession, there were two more. Just a couple days ago, out of the blue, I was invited to be the guest on a radio talk show. That's the first such invite this year. But this lady is quite knowledgeable about paranormal topics; so I will again be "preaching to the choir" to a large extent. But maybe that is what I'm supposed to be doing, i.e., maybe I'm not supposed to be reaching the general public; maybe I'm supposed to be reaching those people who have studied, but could benefit from what I specialize in, i.e., the best information, carefully "strained" for quality. Guessing at what one is supposed to be doing can easily be overdone. I used to agonize over it constantly; now I just muse about it occasionally, dedicate what I'm doing to God and my spiritual master, and move foward. I figure I'll get tapped on the shoulder if I'm going off the trail.

Anyway, last night I was invited to a formal dinner at an upscale restaurant, in connection with the alumni association of my alma mater. Most of them were recent grads; it was kind of odd because the only person from my era was the dean, who was the guest of honor. She was sitting too far away from me at the table to be able to talk to her much; she did know or remember a couple of my professors from the early '80's. The young people at my end of the table were very nice--bright young professionals moving forward in their careers. They bonded as a group, and I was hard-pressed to fit in and be included, and at some point I just let them talk. And percentage-wise, I would say there was 5% talk about their professions, and 95% talk about trivia. And when I say trivia, I mean, about an hour's worth of talk about favorite restaurants. For myself, I can't afford to eat out very much. When I do, with my girlfriend, we go to places I can reasonably afford, i.e., in the $8.00-$12.00 per plate range. (She could afford more, but she knows I can't.) So there wasn't much I could have contributed to the conversation anyway. As it was, I was beginning to ask myself, toward the end of the evening, how it was possible to actually talk about restaurants for an hour.

Now, unlike Matthew Whittier, who I think I was a couple lifetimes ago (see previous Update), who apparently had quite a knack for social satire, hopefully I have learned not to be aggressive and hurt people's feelings with my observations about society. Certainly I feel as much of an outsider as Matthew apparently did in the New England of the 1800's. I know part of this was "cocktail talk," the very early process of group cohesion, and that these people were keeping the conversation light as they got to know each other. Still, I am wondering, do most people in this society keep their life and attention on the very surface of life? If that's true, this is one of the main reasons I can't get any kind of popular interest or support for my documentary on reincarnation--unless it were very sensationalized. You can't get people to even think about death--though inroads are being made in this direction, with television series like "Six Feet Under." Even that program, in the last season, made it pretty clear that the guiding genius behind it does not believe in life after death. In fact, from the actor interviews on the DVD, it would appear that only one of them had really studied metaphysics to any degree. So the entire program was really Existentialist in tone--about "coming to grips with one's mortality," but certainly not about the fact that we are not the body and hence not really mortal. (I would say the first step is to come to grips with our mortality--and the next step is to come to grips with our immortality.)

So, if I put all these little "notes" from the universe together (assuming that's what they are), what's the message? I'm not sure. It doesn't appear to be that I'm not supposed to be doing this at all--or the interview invite wouldn't have come. It also doesn't appear that I can expect for my film, or my other educational efforts, to become popular. There are too many factors inhibiting the public's receptivity.

There was one more "note" recently. In my spiritual master, Meher Baba's "Discourses," which I have been studying closely in the course of audio-editing a narrated version, I ran across a paragraph which explains, basically, that some erroneous beliefs are due to wrong valuation; and that wrong valuation, in turn, is due to desires and attachments. In this instance, for example, people do not want reincarnation to be true; because if it were true, they would have to give up attachment to their identification with their bodies, and to a lifestyle which is centered around the desires of the body. Just for starters. So people will not allow the possibility that reincarnation is real into their conscious mind for serious consideration. Similarly, people who cannot accept it on religious grounds, are very much attached to having a prefabricated, self-contained world view. That world view gives them comfort, and also makes them feel that they are superior to people who don't have such a template. Their world feels solid, having adopted, lock-stock-and-barrel, official Christian creeds and dogmas. They are not about to let something into their conscious mind for serious consideration that would threaten that sense of security (or that sense of superiority).*

Meher Baba also makes it clear that it is not possible to change people's minds, to get them to reconsider their beliefs grounded in false valuation, by simply telling them, no matter how intellectually clear the explanation. They do, indeed, go into denial as I've been saying in the film and on the website for years--but trying to get through that isn't possible. Nor is it ethical, if you could do it. It's not meant for them. This, I think, is the lesson for me to learn; not that I shouldn't try to do any education work at all; just that I need to be realistic about who will be able to hear it.

So if I'm correct about the "notes" here, it means that "In Another Life" will likely not be broadcast to the general public, unless and until the mass consciousness gets to a point that it is ready to listen. But it is making its way into the university system; and though the website hits have gone down in the last few months, it is still visited by between 50 and 70 people each day. Most of those are at a point of at least seriously considering the reality of reincarnation, and perhaps even deeper subjects.

So, that appears to be my audience. It's not that the work isn't getting done; it's just that I had a misunderstanding about who my audience was. I started trying to get the information to the public; but it was the seekers who were receptive to it and paid attention. That's probably why the only place the program has aired so far is in Denver, Colorado, which is pretty-much a new age seeker's paradise.

As I was writing the paragraph above, I got word that a distributor in Malayasia has turned down "In Another Life." I'm told the reviewing staff liked it, but they felt that their television audience wasn't ready for it. (Since statistically that country is 52% Muslim, that could have been code for "the Muslims will freak out.")

Distribution in Greece is still moving forward, as of this writing; Germany is possible. Canada seems a lost cause (especially because they put a strong preference on Canadian material). Any further broadcast in the United States, including through public television, seems impossible. I don't know yet whether university and college professors are purchasing it from Films Media Group for their classes or libraries. When the revised version is available I'll be writing to professors individually (I have permission to do that from the distributor). So just as I'm about to throw in the towel something seems to happen. I just sort of watch bemusedly, and take whatever the next logical step seems to be.

Best regards,

Stephen S., Producer

*This is not to say that there is no legitimate spiritual understanding to be found within organized Christianity. Christians manage to deepen their intuitive understanding of God and develop an active relationship with Him in spite of the rigid confines of doctrine (much of which I believe is now seriously askew after 2,000 years). This rigidity is a necessary stage over several lifetimes. As people outgrow it, they throw off this superstructure of preset beliefs (violently or gently as the case may be). As society matures spiritually, it will likewise throw it off. Then, only a relatively few people will be found clinging to it, perhaps, instead of its having the vast popularity it has today. The alternative to organized religion is setting sail without a guide, trying to be one's own teacher; or, finding a false or lesser teacher (i.e., by "lesser" I mean a teacher who has some degree of spiritual advancement, and may be sincere and quite impressive by our limited standards, but who is not spiritually Perfect). None of these solutions are found to be effective or without error in the long run, and going it alone is particularly risky, with the karmic stakes over the next several lifetimes being very high (as I know from personal experience). The only solution in the long run is to identify and surrender to (or, be rescued by in dire need, which is what it usually boils down to) a genuine Perfect Master. Ironically, that process may lead someone full circle back to Jesus, but at that point their understanding of Him will be quite different from that of modern official Christian dogma.

Previous Updates
5/31/06
4/26/06
1/23/06
11/20/05
10/18/05
7/13/05
6/6/05
2/12/05
1/6/05
11/20/04
8/2/04
3/8/04
3/6/04
2/4/04
11/24/03
10/6/03
7/23/03
3/23/03