Updates

Since there is not much to report on the "In Another Life" project (other than a recent interview on "Out of Time Radio" with "Jupiter's Girl," Janine Manguno, which was was relaxed and enjoyable--and an unfortunate situation developing with my distributor in Greece, who appears to be refusing to fulfill his contractual obligations to send me a copy of the translation for approval, which will then force me to notify potential buyers that it is an unauthorized edition), I'm going to continue with the trend of turning this into a "blog," and sharing the thoughts that have come to me.

The last couple days I've been out of town on a work trip, and I took with me Hans TenDam's book, "Exploring Reincarnation." It's crystallizing a number of thoughts about my approach to reincarnation, and to reincarnation education. They are interconnected thoughts that have been "percolating on the back burner" for a long time, and I don't know if I can set them all down as a whole, but I'm going to try.

First of all, although I shared some thoughts on past-life therapy with with Dr. TenDam when he purchased a copy of "In Another Life"--and didn't receive a reply from him--I had a generally positive impression of his work as a driving force of reincarnation studies in the Netherlands. And the book is certainly comprehensive in its scope.

However, as I began reading, I found it quite uncomfortable, and it took me a couple chapters to identify what was bothering me about it. Dr. TenDam begins with a survey of the various types of reincarnation beliefs, dividing, classifying and categorizing them in the time-honored tradition of the Western mind. He does not seem to allow the principle of One Truth radiating out into many facets to guide his thinking. Which is to say, he does not start with the assumption that the truth is bigger than any belief system (or, for that matter, any intellectual theory), and this belief gets a certain aspect, and that belief gets a different aspect, and this belief reflects more of the truth, and that belief reflects a bit less of the truth, and so-on. That would be the esoteric or what he terms "Gnostic" approach, and true to form, later on in the book it becomes painfully clear that he is anti-gnosticism, and sees gnosticism as unscientific and irrational.

This is the same issue I found myself addressing at the start of the previous Update, that Western-trained minds see the supra-rationality of mysticism as irrational, i.e., subrational. Dr. TenDam can state the Gnostic position; but it would appear he simply doesn't believe it. Part of the problem seems to be that his exposure has been primarily to its lesser advocates and its lesser teachings. This is rather akin to my announcing that I dislike opera. Well, chances are I have never experienced really good opera. What I have experienced has been second-rate opera.

Now, there is no way I'm going to avoid offending people in this Update. For this commentary, I give up. It's going to happen, but I am not trying to do it intentionally. I'll apologize in advance and move forward as gently as I reasonably can and still get my points across.

Dr. Ten Dam reveals his error when he cites that the most important presentation of Gnosticism in the modern world has been Theosophy. Well, that is simply not true. Helena Blavatsky was a bold and courageous pioneer, and had a far-ranging and powerful mind (probably, in a league with Dr. TenDam's), and she obtained her teachings from certain yogis in the Himalayas who had what I would characterize as a certain degree of mystical attainment. But in my opinion, neither these yogis, nor Blavatsky, nor the Theosophical movement as a whole, was the purest or most powerful manifestation of Gnostic teaching in the modern world. So, I am not a big fan of opera; and evidently Dr. TenDam is not a big fan of Gnosticism. But I may be mistaken about opera at its best, and he is mistaken--profoundly mistaken--about Gnosticism at its best. However, it's not just a matter of exposure to the best sources, it's because the Gnostic approach will ultimately prove the final solution. Science leads to the door of Gnostic vision and Gnostic understanding. Direct intuitive perception of reality is a higher step than intellectual understanding. This is the way the universe is constructed--because, reality is spiritual. This statement will make Gnostics cringe, but it is true in a sense and we will call it a "provisional statement." If one has to choose how to characterize reality, one would be better off to say that reality is spiritual than that it is material.

There is one very strange exception to Gnostic teachings on reincarnation, which is not overlooked by Dr. TenDam (he cites it, inferring that it's typical of Gnostic illogic), and that is from Sufi teacher Inayat Khan's writings. Inayat Khan, who I understand to have been in the state of consciousness wherein one sees God directly, nonetheless teaches, in his lectures published after his death, that past-life memories result when an "incoming" soul encounters an "outgoing" soul, and the incoming soul takes on the memories and identity of the outgoing one. Actually, at least one of these texts also contains a reference to reincarnation in ascending order through the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms, and then to man, as taught by Rumi. It is presented as an illustrative story and could be taken literally or figuratively as the reader chooses, but it is clearly the same teaching as Rumi's (see "Mastery Through Accomplishment," Sufi Order Publications, New Lebanon, New York, 1978, pp. 306-309, the very last chapter of the book entitled "The Knowledge of Self"). However, the "transfer" explanation, as Dr. TenDam categorizes it, is more prominent. Although there could conceivably be some truth to it, as an entire explanation for past-life memory, it is clearly wanting. Because Inayat Khan's teaching as a whole is intensely insightful and of the highest caliber, but he consistently teaches all around reincarnation as though deliberately avoiding it, my best guess is that he felt the general public was not ready for reincarnation at the time he was teaching. He left an ambiguous reference to it in the last chapter of one book, for serious and advanced students--the only ones likely to get to the last chapter--to find. In any case I am guessing that he knew full-well that reincarnation is a reality, but chose for some reason to avoid teaching it. (Out of respect, I would not "blow his cover" except that Meher Baba saw fit to publish seven very explicit chapters on reincarnation and karma in his "Discourses," so I think the time has come.)

Dr. TenDam correctly points out the inherent paradox of the Gnostic teachings on reincarnation (and other subjects)--that in the Gnostic approach, intellectual presentations of these teachings are not the real teachings. They can ever and only be pointers (as in the zen story of the finger pointing to the moon). But TenDam makes of this paradox a negative, so much so that he dismisses Gnostic teachings as useless from a scientific viewpoint. Or to be precise, that's what he was doing at the point where I set the book down, which is where he "lost me." If he doesn't believe that Truth is inherently and primarily spiritual, and that this spiritual Truth comes from a single Source, then it would make sense for him to dismiss Gnosticism as being of no use to science. If one believes that Truth is ultimately beyond the world of the intellect and that intellect is not adequate to approach it, however, then Gnosticism is the only final solution. Gnosticism includes science and intellectual understanding and can be of immense practical help by inspiring, guiding and trueing it; but science and intellectual understanding can never include (or legitimately dismiss) Gnosticism. Nor are they separate--the scientific method of pursuing truth is a preparation for, and is subsumed under, the Gnostic method. This is not a "rah-rah my team wins" issue--this is, once again, due to the way in which the universe is constructed. The primacy of Gnosticism is built-in to the very structure of existence, its origin and its purpose. (Yes, purpose.)

All this commentary about the book is really leading up to trying to explain how my project differs from that of many of the leading reincarnation proponents. I have gotten past the snag that Dr. TenDam and so many others have hit when encountering Gnosticism--by bypassing the "lesser lights." I have identified and gone directly to the top sources. Whereas Blavatsky was guided by yogis in the Himalayas with a certain degree of occult, and perhaps, Gnostic, attainment, I used as my primary sources spiritual masters who had attained God-Realization, and occasionally, those who were at a level of consciousness where, although they were not yet Realized, they could see God directly. Traditionally religious people will understand this principle as the incomparable value of sacred scripture (which is sacred because it was given by spiritual masters in these exalted states)--except, these teachings, while being of the same high caliber as scripture, are recent enough to be unspoiled by well-meaning or malicious translation or editing. When you use this caliber of teaching as your source material, absorbing it reverently and applying it in a consecrated way, it's a new ballgame. Gone is the lack of clarity and consistency; gone are the various errors clouding legitimate flashes of insight. Granted at this stage one is still working with teachings whose true value is as a pointer or a roadmap to direct perception. But it is still a vast improvement over what we have grown accustom to accepting as knowledge, i.e., data, intellectual constructs, and systems of thought. These teachings are alive and anchored in a living Source, like a living branch connected to the tree, compared with a dried-up branch that has been sawed off. They call the faculty of intuition into full play; they bring head and heart into a cooperative balance. They reveal a universe that is alive, purposeful, and conscious, rather than one that seems to be dead and mechanical. The implications in all fields of endeavor are staggering.

There's a problem however--one is now in a realm where most people can't seem to follow. They can't see the difference, and of course they have no reason to believe me about it, but still they vaguely sense the danger that these teachings would rip one's long-held and much-cherished assumptions from one. And so the teachings are ignored, resisted, avoided or simply not perceived. Or else they are watered-down so as to be acceptable. Which is why I got "fed-up" in the first part of my previous Update entry, and is also why historically these teachings have been kept secret. In this new era, the teachings are not kept within the confines of secret societies. They are out on the table for everyone to see--but they are mixed in a pile with the imitations, like a garage sale consisting of tables piled high with costume jewelry, with three pieces of genuine jewelry mixed in. They are hidden right out in the open.

The crucial point here is that my project includes science but is not, in the end, based on science. It is Gnostic in principle--but it is not based on the sources of mixed quality that most people have drawn upon as being Gnostic. It is also what has been called faith-based, inasmuch as it is dedicated to God and consecrated to God--but it is not constricted as in fundamentalist interpretations and dogmas. So as a result, scientists will object to the Gnosticism and the fact that it is consecrated to God; Gnostics will object to my selection of sources; and fundamentalist Christians will, perhaps, sense that it is consecrated and "faith-based," but they will object to the insistence on rigorous logic, and they will also object to its Gnosticism as being heretical.

No-wonder it's not very popular. And no-wonder leaders in the field of reincarnation education have been initially interested in my work, but then their interest has cooled. No-wonder as I have become increasingly explicit about the nature and focus of this project in recent months, my website hits have dropped by 50% or more.

Dr. TenDam periodically praises the work of Prof. Chris Bache, whom I have also corresponded with, and who praised and recommended my documentary to quite a number of his colleagues. Dr. Bache, like Dr. TenDam, obviously has a brilliant intellect. Unfortunately, he is sold on using psychedelic experience (i.e., through drugs and through breath techniques) as his primary source for direct perception of things pertaining to reincarnation. In short, he uses a variation of Gnosticism which draws on artificially-induced mystical experience. I was surprised, actually, to see Dr. TenDam praising a psychedelic Gnostic, while eschewing non-pscyhedelic Gnostics. It made me wonder if Dr. TenDam read far enough into Dr. Bache's book (admitting candidly that I have not read far into Dr. TenDam's book)--because the first few chapters are a brilliant essay about the issues impinging on reincarnation; while the latter chapters are a discussion of the use of psychedelic experience to explore the larger issues of reincarnation. I tried to read Prof. Bache's book through twice, the second time when he suggested that I might wish to present or promote his book in reciprocity. I simply couldn't, mostly because of his appeal to psychedelic experience as his experiential base. (I also had a problem with his presentation on karma, that there can be "accidents" or, as I understood his presentation and recall it now, random meaningless events). As much as one might want to, there is no room for politics in something as important as educating the public on reincarnation, and one cannot always give reciprocal endorsements.

Dr. TenDam's book--or as much of it as I have read thus far--suggests to me that although the general acceptance of reincarnation is going to forever change the intellectual landscape in the West, it may not be enough, in and of itself, to dislodge the West from its centuries-long habit of classifying, categorizing, and dividing reality into constructs as a way of understanding it. It may not be enough to move Western man from the materialistic idea that he is a body having experiences (including, at times, spiritual experiences), to the idea that he is a spirit having experiences in the physical body and physical world. Dr. TenDam's book proves to me that it is possible to study this field of reincarnation extensively, and still not "get" the fundamental thing about the spiritual basis of reality.

Music opening this page: "High Landrons," Eric Johnson (Ah Via Musicom album)
All I can say is, if you have a chance to see Eric in concert, don't pass it up...
sell the car and hitch to the concert if you have to.