Many Lives, Many Masters certainly stretched and challenged my belief system as I read about an unlikely woman who seemingly had little or no capacity for the vault of knowledge she expressed under regression therapy. Several times throughout the book I found myself stopping to think, "There's no way this is true." However, the author goes out of his way to build credibility and convince the reader that both his claims and the claims of the patient are factual and backed by science.
I really wish I took notes as I read it so that I could cite good examples to illustrate whatever points I eventually came up with, but sadly i did not. A couple of examples that made me think, "This could be possible" are as follows:
After several sessions, the patient goes to a horse track and wins every single race, then gives her winnings to the first homeless person she sees. Of course, as with much of the book, the integrity of this and other claims are based on the integrity of both the therapist/author and his patient.
The patient, who supposedly knows nothing about anything really (according to the author) is able to recollect - with startling clarity and detail - historical times and geographical regions. Note that while today we can learn about anything at the touch of a button via the Internet (especially Google), at the time this book was written it would have been much more difficult for her to research, compile, and makes sense of all the information.
The patient is able to discern what her therapist has gone through with the loss of his son and his father.
So i began thinking about the idea of many lives, reincarnation, and spiritual masters in light of my faith. Is there any way that the two beliefs can stand in agreement? I mean, they do share many of the same convictions: Death is not the end all/there is no reason to fear death, while we are on this earth there are many things we need to learn such as patience, kindness, love, selflessness, and many of the other attributes detailed in Scripture. After further consideration, the two appear to be very much the same. Almost too similar. But there is a critical difference: The focus of one is on God and Jesus, while the focus of the other is on the self. So i guess it depends then on your own belief system. The "masters" in the book promoted all of these great values apart from God. What's wrong with that? What's my point?
The area the book challenged me most has to do with the spiritual realm. In my own spiritual journey I have relegated angels and demons to superstitions, excuses, or great movie characters. But after reading Many Lives, Many Masters I came to a conclusion: It is either true that we live many lives and learn some important tenets along the way, subconsciously storing memories of past lives. In other words, either everything the author claims is accurate and true, OR the truth is that there is a spiritual enemy, a fallen angel, who prowls like a lion, waiting to kill and destroy; who uses his ageless experience to deceive and promote a belief system that praises and encourages Christian tenets without Christ. In my opinion it is one of the other, but both cannot be true.
Well, first, I want to thank Elise for suggesting this book. It is exactly the kind of book I had in mind when I started this blog- something that was interesting, entertaining, and stimulating to the reader to think about and something that forced the reader to consider some ideas that they might not have thought of before. It definitely accomplished that for me. I found myself at times having to force my Mom’s voice from my mind that was telling me to fear a book like this because it was “of the devil” and would steer me away from my faith (Love you mom, and I appreciate your guidance over the years ☺). While it is important to be cautious about what one learns and studies, critically judging it against standards of truth, being too cautious and critical can really be dangerous; some of the worst crimes against humanity have been committed by close-minded individuals (or groups) who refuse to consider another side’s perspective. In addition, considering perspectives that might seem contrary to one’s beliefs often can serve to enrich those beliefs in ways that couldn’t have been done otherwise (i.e. a muscle that is broken down during exercise results in growing back even stronger).
So that is the tension with which I struggled with while reading this book. How I can be open to the ideas that are in this book without simply accepting them without subjecting them to the kind of critical analysis that even the author subjected them to before he accepted his interpretation of the events surrounding his sessions with Catherine? In light of that tension, here are some of my thoughts and analysis of the matter:
The author did a very good job at surrounding the events that occurred with his own doubts and investigations of them. Obviously, he is a very intelligent individual, and through his own analysis of the events he made a very clear and convincing argument for some type of human reincarnation. And so, I sought out to try and see if there was some way to reconcile that perspective with the many interdependent theological and anthropological ideas that I have studied in Christianity. Is believing in reincarnation something that could actually work with what I believe? Do I need to change what I believe? Have Christians rejected it simply because (as Weiss argues) it does not give someone the urgency of needed to decide on their faith, or are there other problems with that perspective? Let’s explore:
In the beginning of the book, the author talks about how there were some proponents of reincarnation in Jesus’ time. This is true. In the gospels, John the Baptist and Jesus are both thought by some to be the reincarnation of Elijah or some other prophet (See Matthew 16:14-16, Matthew 11:14, Mark 6:14-16 and Luke 9:7-8). Although it certainly has been the minority position in the Christian tradition, there have also been some theologians whose ideas have agreed with such a perspective. Weiss mentioned that some of those early Christian thinkers were the Gnostics, the most famous of which was Origen (even though he was condemned as a heretic by the early church). Other more contemporary theologians (found mostly within process theology) that can been seen as more sympathetic to reincarnation are Geddes MacGregor (20th Century theologian who taught as USC and wrote on the doctrine of God early in his life, then later drifted toward a more reincarnational model; wrote a book called “Reincarnation in Christianity”), John Hick (“Evil and the God of Love”; “Death and the Eternal Life”), and David Ray Griffin (Process thinker who taught at Claremont School of Theology and taught that our lives create patterns of meaning that pass on through us to others, that we exist in tight patterns with one another, and that people can leave imprints or momentums of energy that other people can pick up; so Catherine’s memories wouldn’t be past lives, but her picking up on reverberations that were left over from other’s lives). Karl Barth is certainly not a theologian that would fall under that kind of framework, but considering questions of who would go to heaven and who would go to hell (a question that I have little patience for on many accounts), he taught that God’s grace does not fail in that God desires all to be saved and that is what is going to happen. It is possible that with that perspective, reincarnation would come into play in that people could live multiple lives and grow in knowledge until they get to a point where they come to a love of God and belief in Christ in such a way that they are “saved” (however that works), so that none have to go to hell. This kind of view is similar to the story in C.S. Lewis’s book “The Great Divorce”.
One of the big problems with some of these ideas however (and the reason the ideas of Origen and other Gnostics were rejected), was that it relies on a very strong anthropology of dualism. In this way, there exists a great distinction between body and soul. One of the implications for the Gnostics was that Jesus did not actually have a human body but was simply spirit, and therefore never actually suffered or died. In addition, as Tate did a good job of pointing out, having something about me that transcends the physical places a focus on the self in ways that have not been consistent with most of Christian thought over time. The hope is not in ourselves, but in God.
Another area that Weiss uses to accomplish his aims is in the study of near death experiences and how they all seem to share a common experience of some bright light, etc. These commonalities have been fairly well documented recently, but in medieval times, the experiences were quite different. Carol Zolesky has done a lot of work showing that those near-death stories were not about a tunnel of light, but about crossing a very narrow, unsteady bridge that is very easy to fall off of with monsters below. Has the entrance into the afterlife changed somehow or is it all in people’s perceptions about what they expect to happen? One of my professors that I asked said that among Mormons, many of their near-death experiences have confirmed their ideas about what the afterlife will hold for them. Is that because it is what they expect or is actually going to happen for them and not others? I have had some crazy vivid dreams since reading this book, is it because I am more in touch with the spiritual realm like Weiss thinks, or is it my expectations? I have many friends who started studying spiritual warfare and angels and demons, etc., and they started having nightmares and feeling like they were being attacked by demons at times. Is it because the demons didn’t want them to learn about them and wanted my friends to remain naïve to their influence, or is it because they were thinking and reading about those things and they fell asleep thinking about them which resulted in the dreams about them? Did Dr. Weiss start to receive more clients who were helped with past-life therapy because of a newly tuned spiritual affinity or is it because they heard about him and thought it made more sense and they expected to be healed by it? Is it fixing past lives or just a backdoor way of helping some type of unconscious psychodynamic attachment issues?
To all of those questions: I’m not sure. I suspect I am going to need a lot more study and analysis before I can say I have a strong opinion that it is one side of the other. What I do know, is that there is incredible power in expectation and perception (see other examples of hypnosis and placebo studies). People want to confirm their ideas of things, and will find ways to make that happen, no matter what faith they hold to. There is a great need for critical study of these ideas by many people in order to come to some consensus, and people need to read more books like this which challenge their preconceived notions in order to refine and rebuild their ideas into a more cohesive and intelligent whole instead of just taking bits and pieces of what sounds good and putting it together without seeing the contradictions that are inherent in their combination.
No matter what the conclusion, it is clear that there is more to life than it seems and it is something that we should be open to and investigate, not being content to live in the reductionistic and materialistic culture that often times characterizes our lives and the country we live in.
What a great book! Bring on the next one (after I finish my thesis)!
I am blown away by the depth of Matt and RandomBrandonBlog’s responses. I agree with so much of what you guys wrote. I found myself nodding while reading the above passages. Dr. Weiss’ book raised so many questions for me about my wavering agnosticism/atheism/spirituality. Books like this and Jesus Wants to Save Christians, help me to reconnect to the ideas of spirituality that I too often want to use only logic to examine and discard. But you can’t really use logic when reading spiritual books, whether the Bible or the book of Buddha. I suppose you have to read them more with your heart (at risk of sounding totally cheesy and silly) than just your mind. Both of the previous posters mentioned the focus on the self instead of a focus on Jesus. This is an interesting point to me. On the one hand, I do think that the current culture of self-focus has very negative implications (my research mentor focuses on generational increases in narcissism and self-esteem). But on the other hand, I have a hard time agreeing with the possibility that this is a distraction from Christ brought about by devils. Dr. Weiss in no way professes to be any type of prophet or spiritual leader. In today’s society, many people are left behind by the rigidity and contradictions within the Bible. I simply don’t believe that an individual who spreads a message of loving-kindness, grace, and forgiveness (ideas that J-rock enjoyed teaching) would be condemned for it. Regardless of whether you believe in the anthropomorphic God-as-father figure sitting on a cloud or not, helping people who are in pain reach a state of peace is a good thing. The bible repeatedly discusses the idea of people being their own priests (as Rob Bell brings up in the next book), and what Dr. Weiss is trying to do is teach the techniques of meditation and inner peace for a better world. I know this might be considered an evil to certain people, but I believe that you don’t need the church to know God, or to come to love Jesus.
wow i just have to say that you both had some incredible insight in regards to this book. I was especially affected/impacted by the last thing EliseCeleste said: "you don’t need the church to know God, or to come to love Jesus." I think it is sad but true that history and even contemporary times show that the church has done a better job of turning people off by its corruption and, as you so aptly stated, rigidity than attracting, welcoming and enfolding them into herself. Hm...I know what I'll be pondering over the next few weeks.
Many Lives, Many Masters certainly stretched and challenged my belief system as I read about an unlikely woman who seemingly had little or no capacity for the vault of knowledge she expressed under regression therapy. Several times throughout the book I found myself stopping to think, "There's no way this is true." However, the author goes out of his way to build credibility and convince the reader that both his claims and the claims of the patient are factual and backed by science.
ReplyDeleteI really wish I took notes as I read it so that I could cite good examples to illustrate whatever points I eventually came up with, but sadly i did not. A couple of examples that made me think, "This could be possible" are as follows:
After several sessions, the patient goes to a horse track and wins every single race, then gives her winnings to the first homeless person she sees. Of course, as with much of the book, the integrity of this and other claims are based on the integrity of both the therapist/author and his patient.
The patient, who supposedly knows nothing about anything really (according to the author) is able to recollect - with startling clarity and detail - historical times and geographical regions. Note that while today we can learn about anything at the touch of a button via the Internet (especially Google), at the time this book was written it would have been much more difficult for her to research, compile, and makes sense of all the information.
The patient is able to discern what her therapist has gone through with the loss of his son and his father.
So i began thinking about the idea of many lives, reincarnation, and spiritual masters in light of my faith. Is there any way that the two beliefs can stand in agreement? I mean, they do share many of the same convictions: Death is not the end all/there is no reason to fear death, while we are on this earth there are many things we need to learn such as patience, kindness, love, selflessness, and many of the other attributes detailed in Scripture. After further consideration, the two appear to be very much the same. Almost too similar. But there is a critical difference: The focus of one is on God and Jesus, while the focus of the other is on the self. So i guess it depends then on your own belief system. The "masters" in the book promoted all of these great values apart from God. What's wrong with that? What's my point?
The area the book challenged me most has to do with the spiritual realm. In my own spiritual journey I have relegated angels and demons to superstitions, excuses, or great movie characters. But after reading Many Lives, Many Masters I came to a conclusion: It is either true that we live many lives and learn some important tenets along the way, subconsciously storing memories of past lives. In other words, either everything the author claims is accurate and true, OR the truth is that there is a spiritual enemy, a fallen angel, who prowls like a lion, waiting to kill and destroy; who uses his ageless experience to deceive and promote a belief system that praises and encourages Christian tenets without Christ. In my opinion it is one of the other, but both cannot be true.
Well, first, I want to thank Elise for suggesting this book. It is exactly the kind of book I had in mind when I started this blog- something that was interesting, entertaining, and stimulating to the reader to think about and something that forced the reader to consider some ideas that they might not have thought of before. It definitely accomplished that for me. I found myself at times having to force my Mom’s voice from my mind that was telling me to fear a book like this because it was “of the devil” and would steer me away from my faith (Love you mom, and I appreciate your guidance over the years ☺). While it is important to be cautious about what one learns and studies, critically judging it against standards of truth, being too cautious and critical can really be dangerous; some of the worst crimes against humanity have been committed by close-minded individuals (or groups) who refuse to consider another side’s perspective. In addition, considering perspectives that might seem contrary to one’s beliefs often can serve to enrich those beliefs in ways that couldn’t have been done otherwise (i.e. a muscle that is broken down during exercise results in growing back even stronger).
ReplyDeleteSo that is the tension with which I struggled with while reading this book. How I can be open to the ideas that are in this book without simply accepting them without subjecting them to the kind of critical analysis that even the author subjected them to before he accepted his interpretation of the events surrounding his sessions with Catherine? In light of that tension, here are some of my thoughts and analysis of the matter:
The author did a very good job at surrounding the events that occurred with his own doubts and investigations of them. Obviously, he is a very intelligent individual, and through his own analysis of the events he made a very clear and convincing argument for some type of human reincarnation. And so, I sought out to try and see if there was some way to reconcile that perspective with the many interdependent theological and anthropological ideas that I have studied in Christianity. Is believing in reincarnation something that could actually work with what I believe? Do I need to change what I believe? Have Christians rejected it simply because (as Weiss argues) it does not give someone the urgency of needed to decide on their faith, or are there other problems with that perspective? Let’s explore:
In the beginning of the book, the author talks about how there were some proponents of reincarnation in Jesus’ time. This is true. In the gospels, John the Baptist and Jesus are both thought by some to be the reincarnation of Elijah or some other prophet (See Matthew 16:14-16, Matthew 11:14, Mark 6:14-16 and Luke 9:7-8). Although it certainly has been the minority position in the Christian tradition, there have also been some theologians whose ideas have agreed with such a perspective. Weiss mentioned that some of those early Christian thinkers were the Gnostics, the most famous of which was Origen (even though he was condemned as a heretic by the early church). Other more contemporary theologians (found mostly within process theology) that can been seen as more sympathetic to reincarnation are Geddes MacGregor (20th Century theologian who taught as USC and wrote on the doctrine of God early in his life, then later drifted toward a more reincarnational model; wrote a book called “Reincarnation in Christianity”), John Hick (“Evil and the God of Love”; “Death and the Eternal Life”), and David Ray Griffin (Process thinker who taught at Claremont School of Theology and taught that our lives create patterns of meaning that pass on through us to others, that we exist in tight patterns with one another, and that people can leave imprints or momentums of energy that other people can pick up; so Catherine’s memories wouldn’t be past lives, but her picking up on reverberations that were left over from other’s lives). Karl Barth is certainly not a theologian that would fall under that kind of framework, but considering questions of who would go to heaven and who would go to hell (a question that I have little patience for on many accounts), he taught that God’s grace does not fail in that God desires all to be saved and that is what is going to happen. It is possible that with that perspective, reincarnation would come into play in that people could live multiple lives and grow in knowledge until they get to a point where they come to a love of God and belief in Christ in such a way that they are “saved” (however that works), so that none have to go to hell. This kind of view is similar to the story in C.S. Lewis’s book “The Great Divorce”.
One of the big problems with some of these ideas however (and the reason the ideas of Origen and other Gnostics were rejected), was that it relies on a very strong anthropology of dualism. In this way, there exists a great distinction between body and soul. One of the implications for the Gnostics was that Jesus did not actually have a human body but was simply spirit, and therefore never actually suffered or died. In addition, as Tate did a good job of pointing out, having something about me that transcends the physical places a focus on the self in ways that have not been consistent with most of Christian thought over time. The hope is not in ourselves, but in God.
Another area that Weiss uses to accomplish his aims is in the study of near death experiences and how they all seem to share a common experience of some bright light, etc. These commonalities have been fairly well documented recently, but in medieval times, the experiences were quite different. Carol Zolesky has done a lot of work showing that those near-death stories were not about a tunnel of light, but about crossing a very narrow, unsteady bridge that is very easy to fall off of with monsters below. Has the entrance into the afterlife changed somehow or is it all in people’s perceptions about what they expect to happen? One of my professors that I asked said that among Mormons, many of their near-death experiences have confirmed their ideas about what the afterlife will hold for them. Is that because it is what they expect or is actually going to happen for them and not others? I have had some crazy vivid dreams since reading this book, is it because I am more in touch with the spiritual realm like Weiss thinks, or is it my expectations? I have many friends who started studying spiritual warfare and angels and demons, etc., and they started having nightmares and feeling like they were being attacked by demons at times. Is it because the demons didn’t want them to learn about them and wanted my friends to remain naïve to their influence, or is it because they were thinking and reading about those things and they fell asleep thinking about them which resulted in the dreams about them? Did Dr. Weiss start to receive more clients who were helped with past-life therapy because of a newly tuned spiritual affinity or is it because they heard about him and thought it made more sense and they expected to be healed by it? Is it fixing past lives or just a backdoor way of helping some type of unconscious psychodynamic attachment issues?
To all of those questions: I’m not sure. I suspect I am going to need a lot more study and analysis before I can say I have a strong opinion that it is one side of the other. What I do know, is that there is incredible power in expectation and perception (see other examples of hypnosis and placebo studies). People want to confirm their ideas of things, and will find ways to make that happen, no matter what faith they hold to. There is a great need for critical study of these ideas by many people in order to come to some consensus, and people need to read more books like this which challenge their preconceived notions in order to refine and rebuild their ideas into a more cohesive and intelligent whole instead of just taking bits and pieces of what sounds good and putting it together without seeing the contradictions that are inherent in their combination.
No matter what the conclusion, it is clear that there is more to life than it seems and it is something that we should be open to and investigate, not being content to live in the reductionistic and materialistic culture that often times characterizes our lives and the country we live in.
What a great book! Bring on the next one (after I finish my thesis)!
I am blown away by the depth of Matt and RandomBrandonBlog’s responses. I agree with so much of what you guys wrote. I found myself nodding while reading the above passages.
ReplyDeleteDr. Weiss’ book raised so many questions for me about my wavering agnosticism/atheism/spirituality. Books like this and Jesus Wants to Save Christians, help me to reconnect to the ideas of spirituality that I too often want to use only logic to examine and discard. But you can’t really use logic when reading spiritual books, whether the Bible or the book of Buddha. I suppose you have to read them more with your heart (at risk of sounding totally cheesy and silly) than just your mind.
Both of the previous posters mentioned the focus on the self instead of a focus on Jesus. This is an interesting point to me. On the one hand, I do think that the current culture of self-focus has very negative implications (my research mentor focuses on generational increases in narcissism and self-esteem). But on the other hand, I have a hard time agreeing with the possibility that this is a distraction from Christ brought about by devils. Dr. Weiss in no way professes to be any type of prophet or spiritual leader.
In today’s society, many people are left behind by the rigidity and contradictions within the Bible. I simply don’t believe that an individual who spreads a message of loving-kindness, grace, and forgiveness (ideas that J-rock enjoyed teaching) would be condemned for it.
Regardless of whether you believe in the anthropomorphic God-as-father figure sitting on a cloud or not, helping people who are in pain reach a state of peace is a good thing. The bible repeatedly discusses the idea of people being their own priests (as Rob Bell brings up in the next book), and what Dr. Weiss is trying to do is teach the techniques of meditation and inner peace for a better world.
I know this might be considered an evil to certain people, but I believe that you don’t need the church to know God, or to come to love Jesus.
wow i just have to say that you both had some incredible insight in regards to this book. I was especially affected/impacted by the last thing EliseCeleste said: "you don’t need the church to know God, or to come to love Jesus." I think it is sad but true that history and even contemporary times show that the church has done a better job of turning people off by its corruption and, as you so aptly stated, rigidity than attracting, welcoming and enfolding them into herself. Hm...I know what I'll be pondering over the next few weeks.
ReplyDelete