Bruce Charlton's Notions

I am not sure how many people in the modern world really believe in reincarnation; because so much reincarnation talk seems to operate at a superficial and 'lifestyle' level... Something to chat-about and speculate-on - or a stick with-which to beat mainstream Christians. 

But presumably some people at least have reincarnation as a deeply-motivating kind of belief, that might sustain courage in the face of adversity? 

But I must admit that I find it hard to imagine why a Christian who believed in Heaven (at least, who believed in heaven as I understand it to be) could want to be reincarnated after their biological-death,  instead of being resurrected.   

To my way of thinking, reincarnation is a natural and spontaneous way of thinking in childhood and during human history - and therefore I suppose it to be true: I suppose that Men (or at least some Men) were reincarnated after death, through much of human history. Reincarnation is therefore true, or a real possibility - or, at least, it was. 

Although I also note that beyond the mere fact of reincarnation there are many and very different 'schemes' of reincarnation. Perhaps there were different reincarnations in different types of human society? I tend to think this is likely.  

But what I do find difficult to understand about reincarnation for a modern Man (although here I will make an attempt to understand it) is why someone who knew of the reality of Heaven and the possibility of his own resurrection - and who also desired resurrection into Heaven... 

...Why such a Christian would instead want to defer resurrection, and be reincarnated, and live another life in this world (in which this current life would not be remembered)? 

When Heaven is both within one's grasp, and is wanted as an ultimate destination (and a situation in which the real business of living can begin, full-time) - it seems like a strange choice to defer entry. 

I know-of, and greatly esteem (overall), several real Christians who also believe-in reincarnation, and apparently want to be reincarnated - who believe in reincarnation as both true and good: examples include Rudolf Steiner, Owen Barfield, and William Arkle - who are among my spiritual mentors.

This is find it hard to understand - because at best it seems like merely delaying - putting-off an achievable perfect outcome available Now - in order to engage in yet-more preparatory stuff. 

But at worst it risks that my next incarnation might choose damnation and reject Heaven altogether - which would be the ultimate disaster. 

However it may have been in the past; the hope of reincarnation nowadays strikes me as akin to kicking-the-can; as if just wanting to delay and defer the unavoidable and final decision.

And that strikes me as rather uncomfortably close to that delayed repentance, that refusal to repent Now; which is actually just a disguised refusal to repent. 

The plea of Augustine of Hippo "Lord, make me chaste - but not yet" has often been misunderstood as a viable life-option for Christians. Of course, it merely means that Augustine was not yet a Christian when he said that (and meant it). 

Analogously, when thought-through to its implications; for a modern Christian to desire reincarnation after death seems close to asking God for "Salvation - but not yet!" - which may well be functionally identical with rejecting salvation. 

Note: It may be that some Christians regard reincarnation as something that just happens, that God 'does to us' (for our own good) whether we want and choose it, or not. Something that we need in order eventually to be allowed into Heaven and to assume the place God desires for us. If so, then this would surely be a cause for sadness and an attitude of resignation to God's will? Yet, many of those who argue for reincarnation clearly do not see it as a sad thing thus to be compelled to delay our admission to Heaven - on the contrary, they apparently have a positive and enthusiastic interest in the subject. This seems to me to display an implicit positive preference for reincarnation as their personal destination post-mortem - which I what I am criticizing here. 

Although most Christian apparently don't have this attitude; I find personally it hard to reject-outright the idea of reincarnation.

This mainly because (it seems) that most people, through most of human history, have believed in the reality of one or another form of reincarnation - plus several of the more modern thinkers whom I most respect believe in reincarnation, apparently from directly intuited personal experience.

However, I find that the Gospels tell us that Jesus taught all Men are resurrected after death - not reincarnated - and make their choice of Heaven or Hell. On the other hand, the Gospel discussions of whether or not John the Baptist was some kind of reincarnation of a prophet seem to confirm that, at least until the advent of Jesus's ministry, reincarnation was regarded as possible - if not universal. 

One way I make sense of this is that I think modern religions tend to fall into one of only two categories - either they believe in some version of reincarnation with spirits returning to inhabit a series of bodies; or else that each human spirit is formed at a time related to incarnation. But these two are not the only possibilities.

A further alternative is seldom known or considered - that an eternal pre-mortal human spirit was alive before incarnation, death and resurrection; in other words that the full potential span of human life falls into three stages: pre-mortal spirit, mortal incarnate, and resurrected incarnate.

(However, given the role for agency and choice, presumably it is possible to choose not to be incarnated, and to remain as a pre-mortal spirit. This would presumably be the situation of some angels - who are either awaiting incarnation, or else have - at least currently - declined the offer of incarnation. And it would be the situation of demons - who reject incarnation along with rejecting God's plan for creation and the Love necessary to its accomplishment.)

This three stage understanding of human life (which is the Mormon view) is the one I regard as true - and my interpretation of those modern people who believe in the reality of reincarnation is that they have not sufficiently seriously considered this alternative. That, for example, they have misinterpreted their intuited memories of pre-mortal spirit life (which may include historical actions in this world, and with people in the past) as being incarnated life. In other words, they remember previous spirit lives, but simply assume that these must necessarily have been incarnated lives.

On the other hand, since reincarnation was apparently a possibility for John the Baptist, it is also possible that some modern people happen also to be reincarnates who, like John the Baptist, are spirits that have returned to fulfil some particular function, do a particular job... So when such people seem to recall a previous incarnate life or lives, maybe they are correct.

I find it striking that so far as I know, all simple, tribal, hunter-gatherer type societies believe in reincarnation - in the form of a 'recycling' of spirits within the tribe over time. The concept is apparently that there are implicitly a fixed number of spirits (or souls) who are reborn some time after death - so that the same set of personalities recur across the generations. My presumption is that such societies self-understanding will have been broadly correct - so this would imply that there used-to-be a, probably universal, system of reincarnation.

Most sedentary (i.e. settled, non-nomadic) totemic and pagan societies apparently either believe in some version of reincarnation, or else they regard life after biological death as being something like Hades or Sheol; that is continued existence of the spirit or soul in a ghostly, demented half-life of present-awareness without agency. Again, I would tend to accept that these people correctly understood their situation - at least in essentials. So, it is possible that this 'underworld' represented the time in-between reincarnations; or that some people/s (e.g. the Ancient Hebrews or Greeks) chose Not to reincarnate - but remained in Sheol/ Hades... implicitly awaiting the Messiah/ Saviour.  

If we accept that the situation up to the time of Jesus's incarnation (i.e. approximately the years BC) was as above - that biological death was followed either by a a kind of suspended animation like Sheol, or else a reincarnation from such a state. Then the further possibility is that this situation was changed by the work of Jesus; and from some point AD onwards - probably the time of Jesus's own resurrection - spirits were resurrected instead of being reborn.

This also applied to the spirits at that point in Sheol/ Hades - some of whom were resurrected at the same time as Jesus. But - given the importance of free choice - it may be that resurrection could be refused, and that some of these may have a job still to do as reincarnates.

If so, modern people who believe they recall earlier incarnations may either be recalling their pre-mortal spirit lives; or they may be people who recall an incarnation (or more than one) before Christ's work in making resurrection, and who have returned to incarnation for some particular purpose.

The idea of saving the appearances, or saving the phenomena, is that deep explanations should explain superficial explanations. For instance, scientific models of the movements of planets should be able to model and predict the movements of the real planets. 

The same idea ought to apply to religious 'models' includings all the various explanations in scripture, doctrine, and formal theology - yet it is surprising how often they don't.

Consider reincarnation. Reincarnation - of widely varying detailed explanations - seems to be a spontaneous, natural and universal human belief except where is is contradicted by culture - in other words, all tribal religions (animistic, totemistic), plus many Eastern religions in the spectrum of Hinduism and Buddhism include reincarnation.

I infer that reincarnation (in its various guises) is an attempt to save these appearances - to explain, model, systematize some basic human experience or intuition. In some way people experience and feel something (this is 'the appearance') that leads them to create various models of reincarnation that 'save' (explain) these experiences and feelings.

It is interesting that mainstream Christianity did not, and did not attempt to, save the appearances when it came to reincarnation - it simply stated that reincarnation was not true, did not happen - and implied that any of the feelings or experiences that led to so many millions of people positing reincarnation as an explanation for them, were merely some kind of delusion.

What were these 'appearnaces'? I think the basic one is the feeling that 'my life did not begin at my birth (or ceonception)'.

Most people do not have any specific (certainly not any detailed) memories of a previous life or lives; but many people do have a sense that their 'current' mortal life was not the beginning of life for them - there was 'something' of themselves, some kind of essence (spirit, soul or incarnate body or whatever) existing before their conception or birth. Some already existing entity which took-on a body and became an incarnate mortal.

In sum, I think this feeling of some past existence is the basis of theories of reincarnation. 

I suspect that this rather vague, but pretty solid, feeling is the basis of the theoretical elaborations of reincarnation.

However, I do not think there is any similar intuition about future reincarnations and their nature and purpose - and indeed these explanations are widely variable between religions; nor do I believe that the sense of having been specifically 'incarnated' i.e. having had a different body - is a part of spontaneous experience.

One strength of Mormonism is that it does explain the most basic intuitions, feelings, experiences concerning a previous life - although the link between the intuitions of Mankind and the doctrinces of Mormonism is seldom made. But Mormonism can say - yes, your feelings are valid; and we can explain them; but not by reincarnation, instead by pre-mortal spirit existence.

This is saving the appearances.

*

This question was brought to the fore for me by my recent engagement with William Arkle and by a much more superficial recent overview of the life and works of Rudolf Steiner - both of whom (despite their very obvious heterodoxies and heresies) saw themselves as Christian, and both of whom (to all appearances) seem genuinely inspired and enlightened (albeit imperfect) men, and also good men.

And both believed in reincarnation - partly from what they perceived to be logical necessity, but also from what they believed to be divine revelations.

*

There are also many other - and much more famous and influential - religious figures who put great emphasis on reincarnation. The founders of Hinduism and Buddhism to name only the two largest; but probably most humans who have ever lived believed in some version of reincarnation, as well as many or most of the greatest religious founders and leaders. .

Given that reincarnation is not a part of core Christian revelation - and seems hardly likely to have been forgotten or left-out by mistake - then how to account for this belief?

Perhaps the most frequent explanation throughout Christian history would be that these are demonic deceptions, designed to manipulate mankind into a state of unrepented sin. But looking at the big picture of these religious figures and of the vast mass of their adherents, makes this seem implausible.

*

One possibility is that the religious leaders, who believe that they have been given a revelation of reincarnation, are correct: but only with respect to themselves.

In other words, reincarnation is a possibility - with some examples being given in the Bible - but it sees to be a rare exception rather than the norm or the rule.

*

In other words, perhaps these inspired spiritual men - such as Steiner and Arkle - are actually themselves among the rare instances of reincarnation; or else are destined to be?

Perhaps they recognise this fact, but mistakenly (but not maliciously) extrapolate it to the mass of other people for whom mortal life is a one-off - and teach it to these people (for whom reincarnation is not, in fact, true) - and these people often accept it due to the genuine spiritual authority of the teachers. 

*

For instance, if someone is himself a reincarnate, then it may be one reason for his advanced spiritual state - he has had more than one life-time to progress, a greater experience; and has consented to return and teach from this enlarged experience.

So these spiritual teachers are indeed (perhaps) reincarnated souls; and they have a particular reason for being reincarnated; but once re-born they are subject to the usual constraints of mortal earthly life; so, although spiritually-advanced, they remain imperfect and prone to both error and sin - including the error (but not necessarily sin) of over-generalising from their own case.

(Indeed, the over-generalising error may plausibly result from humility - the reincarnate perhaps cannot believe his almost unique status and elevated destiny.)

Anyway, for what it is worth, this struck me as a possible - and in some ways satisfying - explanation for the recurrence of the reincarnation idea in a Christian context.

**

Note added: Not all the people who believe in and/or teach reincarnation, not even those who give evidence of genuine inspiration, will necessarily themselves actually be a reincarnate. It is quite possible that the majority are not reincarnated nor will become reincarnated. All I am saying is that it is (I think) a possibility that some teachers of reincarnation may be telling the truth (within the usual constraints of human imperfection of understanding and expression) - so far as they personally are concerned.

It seems that reincarnation goes-with a belief in the superiority of spirit - the superiority of existence as a spirit over incarnated existence...

I say 'goes-with' because I don't think reincarnation logically-implies the superiority of spirit, but goes with it in a natural kind of fashion - apparently; if such Eastern versions of reincarnation are considered as Hinduism, Buddhism - or more recent doctrines such as Anthroposophy and some New Age ideas.

By the 'superiority' of spirit, I mean that with reincarnation it is usual to see life as a pure spirit as superior to life 'in' a body: the body is seen as a restriction.


For reincarnation, repeated incarnations serve the life as a spirit - and usually the ultimate goal is to stop reincarnating, discard bodies, and live permanently (finally, eternally) as a spirit.

The incarnations can serve spirit in various ways - each reincarnation might provide an experience to allow spiritual progress, or be a kind of opposite of this - the incarnation being a punishment or adverse consequence of earlier lives... but in the end the idea is that these incarnations, these repeated embodied lives, are merely a means-to-an-end; they have the purpose of ultimately allowing the body to be discarded.


In Christianity the picture is different - but there is here a difference between 'Mainstream' Christianity and Mormon Christianity.

In most kinds of Catholic and Protestant Mainstream Christianity, the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost include two spirits (Father and Ghost) and one resurrected incarnate (Son). The overall sense seems to be that whether God is a spirit or incarnated makes no difference - since there is (by the mystery of the Trinity) a unity of all three.

But there is a implicit sense in Mainstream Christianity that being incarnated is a problem. Man is regarded as primarily incarnated, as beginning as an incarnate - and the problem of incarnation is solved by means of Jesus descending into the incarnated state, dying and being resurrected... The feeling is that incarnation is a problem that needed solving, and was solved by such means.


For Mormon Christianity, incarnation is superior to spirit life. The Father is incarnate - God is not 'a spirit' but has a body.

Men have their (pre-mortal) origins as spirits, and incarnation is seen as a necessary step in progression to full divinity, to become like the Father.

(Not all pre-mortal spirit Men have incarnated, and presumably not all will necessarily incarnate - if they chose not to. They would remain as spirits - as angels; or as demons, none of whom are - according to doctrine - permitted to incarnate. Therefore, for Mormonism, incarnation is a privilege.) 

And Christ too (although highly-divine as a pre-mortal spirit) necessarily went-through this stepwise process in order to become fully divine, like his Father. But instead of dying and becoming a spirit (as happened to all men before Christ) - by dying and resurrecting; Christ began the new era in which all mortal incarnated Men died and were resurrected.


For Mormonism, incarnation is superior to being a spirit (all else being equal); in the sense of incarnation being a more divine form of being (and, as I said above, necessary for Man, including Christ, to become fully divine).

Therefore; for Christians in general, and Mormons in particular, there is no point in reincarnation - unless something has, in some way, 'gone wrong' with the primary incarnation (maybe that it was ineffective at achieving its purpose for some reason - perhaps extremely premature death?).


My conclusion is that - for Christians - reincarnation isn't a thing that is necessarily ruled-out nor false... As I have previously noted, the discussion in the New Testament of whether John the Baptist was a reincarnated prophet - and if so which one - suggests that the possibility of reincarnation was acknowledged by Jesus and his followers.

It is more a matter that reincarnation is superfluous for Christians, but esepcially for Mormons - at least under 'normal circumstances. Only if something has gone wrong with the primary incarnation would there seem to be any compelling reason to have further incarnations.

This leaves-open the question of how often things go wrong in human mortal lives, such that further incarnations are required (or desirable). Is it common or rare? To that I have no answer.

*

A belief in reincarnation is probably spontaneous for human beings. It is a feature of most hunter-gatherer animistic religions, and also of 'Eastern' forms of paganism such as mainstream Hinduism and Buddhism.

The basic idea is that after death of each currently-alive human, each human soul returns to earth in another body - and that each currently-alive human being has a soul which previously inhabited other bodies.

Thus, in the normal situation, souls circulate through incarnations; and life is a matter of cycling and transformations.

*

(In different traditions, this cycle of souls or a particular soul may be constant; or may have a meaning or tendency - towards upward progression or downward degeneration.)

*

Since I do not believe that reincarnation really happens (or, at least, that reincarnation would be a rare and singular occurrence, not the norm) - then there is a need to explain why so many people feel that reincarnation accounts for basic perceptions concerning the nature of life.

I just have a couple of observations or suggestions based on the idea that the reality of reincarnation may be a consequence of 'misinterpreting' the meaning of true intuitive knowledge.

*

For example, the feeling of a particular affinity between individuals born in different generations may be due to a pre-mortal, pre-incarnate, spiritual relationship - and that incarnation of pre-mortal spirits may be purposive: that the earthly reality of human relations is in some way a microcosm of the pre-existent spirit reality of divine relationships.

(The reality of a pre-mortal spirit existence has been a minority, although sometimes prestigious - e.g. St Augustine of Hippo, view within Christianity throughout its history - and is currently mainly represented among Mormons.) 

This would mean that we are non-randomly incarnated to be born by particular parents in particular situations and with a particular 'network' of potential-deep relationships (not all of which may be apparent). But this is not (as for reincarnation) based on what we did in past lives, but what we are 'destined' to do in this mortal life.

(Bearing in mind that we may choose to defy our destiny, or it may be thwarted by the choice of others or by accident.)

*

Also, the survival of the soul after death seems to be a near universal intuition (which can, of course, be over-learned and suppressed as is usual among modern Western adults); and this intuition may be interpreted not as a step towards some period of life in a post-mortal spirit realms and then resurrection, but as implying that the surviving soul returns to earth in some other form.

(If there is no concept of a heavenly realm, or a spirit underworld, then the only thing a surviving soul could do is to return to earth: either as a discarnate ghost, or by taking another body.)  

*

Also, our intuitive sense of a need for a great deal of spiritual progression, that we are actually grossly imperfect but are supposed to be perfect (or much better than we are) - suggests more learning and development is necessary than can be accomplished in one mortal life.

The interpretation of this intuition may suggest that soul would need to return for multiple lifetimes or attempts. Christian theology regards this perfecting and progress as the work of Christ; and some also allow for further spiritual progression in the state that comes after death.

*

On the one hand reincarnation is optimistic, in the sense that this mortal life we currently experience is not our one and only chance; in another sense and at a deeper level, reincarnation is pessimistic because it devalues this particular mortal life as non-essential, optional, just one among many.

*

Both reincarnation and my own theology demand some kind of rationale and metaphor to explain why the reality is non-obvious: why do we not know spontaneously and exactly where our souls come from and go to?

If the feelings are built-in, which they are; then why not also the understanding of what these feelings mean?

Why must this be puzzled out, guessed or made the subject of divine revelation?

The various answers are the basis of the various theologies.

*

The idea of an evolution of human consciousness throughout history has been a part of spiritual thinking for more than a century - I know it mainly through considering the work of Rudolf Steiner, Owen Barfield and William Arkle over the past couple of years.

(I encountered the idea over thirty years ago summarized in the work of Colin Wilson, but did not then pay much attention.)

The idea of an historical evolution of consciousness seems to go-with a belief in reincarnation, because reincarnation allows each person to participate in the different stages of evolution that are aiming-at a fully divine form of consciousness.

Steiner and Barfield describe this aimed-at state in some detail - in essence it combines on the one hand a direct involvement with, and participation in, reality such as was characteristic of early man and remains characteristic of early childhood; with, on the other hand, a fully alert, self-aware, purposive and analytic consciousness which is characteristic of the adult consciousness and the modern phase of Western history. 

So, the idea is that I am personally experiencing the distinctive modern, alienated consciousness now - including the knowledge and aspiration towards a future state; however, in earlier lives I have also personally experienced, and benefited from, earlier phases of human consciousness. At some point later this life, and perhaps further lives, I may incrementally, a step at a time, learn how to combine the positive qualities of all phases. This aimed-at fully divine conscious state is what Barfield calls Final Participation.

According to Steiner and Barfield, these earlier life phases include non-incarnated lives - lives when we were conscious but had no body. So the theory is really one of multiple lives, rather than re incarnation.

Therefore the human spirit or soul (i.e. that entity which is reincarnated) is here conceptualized as undergoing an educational process toward which each life is contributing.

Repeated lives, many lives, seem to be necessary in order to allow for the very large amount of experience and learning required to bridge the gap between being a man and becoming a god. Certainly, one mortal life seems grossly inadequate for this, especially given that most human lives in history were terminated either in the womb or in early infancy - a small minority of humans have reached adulthood, and even fewer of these have had a full experience of marriage, family, maturity and growing old etc.

So, evolution of consciousness and reincarnation seem to make a neat package. However, this package is, if not incompatible with Christianity, at least somewhat alien to the structure of Christianity; which places a great deal of emphasis on the individual life which we are experiencing now, and sees 'this life' as having potentially decisive consequences for eternity.

And certainly, while reincarnation seems to described in the Bible - most notably in the case of John the Baptist apparently being a reincarnated Prophet Elijah - there isn't any scriptural description of a scheme of reincarnation as the norm. And especially not of multiple lives.

My interpretation is that ancient Christianity saw reincarnation as true, but as an exceptional possibility, done in exceptional cases and for specific purposes - rather than as the standard procedure for the majority of people.

Does an exclusion of reincarnation then rule-out the evolution of consciousness throughout human history? No, but denial of reincarnation with multiple lives does limit the role of evolution of consciousness in the lives of individual spirits or souls - it breaks the link between the evolution of consciousness in history and the evolution of my consciousness and the specific consciousnesses of every other individual.

Put differently, the arguments which (in particular) Owen Barfield makes for different types of consciousness in human history, such as his insights into the changing scope and meaning of words, may well be true; but they lose their relevance to the evolution of my consciousness and your consciousness if we were not present (in earlier lives) actually to experience the several stages of this historical evolution.

In sum, the historical evolution of consciousness is a matter of historical but not personal interest, if we ourselves were not present during that history.

My own belief is therefore that I accept Barfield's description of human consciousness having changed throughout history and in broadly the way he describes; and I also accept that we are meant (or destined) to achieve that mode of consciousness Barfield terms 'Final Participation'. But I do not accept that the two are causally linked - for instance I do not believe that I have, myself, personally participated in the historical phases of the evolution of consciousness during previous lives.   

Rather, I see the evolution of consciousness as a sequence which is recapitulated in different scales in different situations: e.g. through human history, in each person's individual development from childhood to maturity, and also in the largest cosmic scale of our salvation and divination across eternity.

(To clarify this last point: the Barfieldian sequence of Original Participation, the Consciousness Soul and Final Participation can be mapped onto the Mormon theological sequence of pre-mortal spirit life, mortal incarnate life, and post-mortal eternal incarnate life.)

I therefore would modify the Steiner/ Barfield model, since I regard this evolutionary sequence of consciousness as a basic and necessary process in terms of Man as a whole and also individual men working towards fuller divinity. And I think it is because the process is basic and necessary that we see it appearing and re-appearing here and there throughout reality; operating at many scales and across many time-frames.

Note: Previous posts on reincarnation
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=reincarnation

*
My feeling is that reincarnation is not a part of Plan A for Christians - it is not normal. But neither is it excluded nor impossible - it sometimes happens. 

But I suspect we are not supposed to focus or dwell upon it, because to do so would be to the detriment of Plan A.

So, just in brief, when might reincarnation be a possibility?I can think of two, almost opposite, situations.

*

1. When an exceptionally Good person returns to earth as a teacher or prophet. I suspect that one reason that reincarnation has been, mistakenly, taught as a standard necessity is that some of the greatest religious teachers and prophets were themselves reincarnated.

For these teachers and prophets, I presume that mystical introspection told them that they personally had been reincarnated - which was true - but they mistakenly generalized this to apply other people: they made it a principle - which was an error.

*

2. When a soul comes to earth not only to experience incarnation and death - which is the universal necessity for spiritual progression - but also to have some particular kind of experience and this experience did not happen due to some unforeseen and accidental exercise of agency on the part of others: perhaps (sometimes) if a foetus is aborted, or someone (perhaps a child) is murdered before they have been able to have the experience which was an important reason for their incarnation,

(These are just suggestions; and we, in mortal life, would not necessarily know who were these people liable to reincarnation. But this may be a clue as to why most murders are regarded as a particularly bad sin)

In such circumstances, I would imagine that God might allow a soul to be reincarnated, and have another try - a second, or more than second, chance - if that was what the person wanted.

*

Because reincarnation (assuming it does happen), like incarnation in general, is and must (surely?) be the act of a volunteer: a choice.

The idea of a God who uses cycles of reincarnation either to torment or to punish souls is (surely?) incompatible with the loving Father God of Christianity; and Mormonism in particular is clear that incarnation is not compelled but is an act of free agency.

*

In sum, there may be, I think have been, exceptional situations in which reincarnation - another loop through mortal experience, or more than one such loop is permitted to volunteers; either for the good of that soul or for the good of other souls.

But reincarnation is Plan B (or perhaps Plan C, D or E...) - reincarnation is not the Plan of Salvation and Spiritual Progress as it applies to most people, most of the time.

*

*

1. Animism - reincarnation is the unending circulation and transformation of a finite number of immortal souls through multiple sentient entities - this circulation and transformation is  'life' itself.

2. Eastern Hinduism/ Buddhism/ Jainism - reincarnation is the purpose of life: reincarnation is a punishment. Life is suffering, but death is not an escape unless or until multiple lives have educated the soul to die and escape reincarnation, when individual self-hood is extinguished and reabsorbed into the primary energies.

3. Modern New Age-ism - reincarnation is the purpose of life: reincarnation is an ascent towards divinity; necessary because one life is not enough to accomplish all the learning and spiritual progression needed to bridge between the human and the divine.

*

Christians, I take it, believe that reincarnation simply does not happen, at least not as a norm; although I don't think Christians would regard reincarnation as absolutely impossible, if it was necessary in some way to God's purposes - which means it might have happened, but exceptionally and not as a standard part of God's basic plan of salvation. 

*

Reincarnation seems to imply (if not to entail) the eternal primacy of spirit life (unembodied, 'pure' spirit) above incarnation (embodiment). 

That is; with reincarnation Men are primarily - first and last - spirit forms; and the history of a Man's being begins with being-a-spirit and ends with being-a-spirit. 

This spirit undergoes a series of incarnations which may be (eventually, according to some versions of reincarnation) aiming-towards eternal status as a spirit. The spirit learns-from - or is otherwise affected-by - an incarnation; however, it is only the spirit which persists. 

Or else there is an unending cycle of (re-) incarnations (and perhaps transformations, for instance to other beings such as animals) through-which the spirit moves serially. But, equally; only the spirit is eternal, with the multiple incarnate forms being left-behind. 

But the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and his promise of resurrection to all who follow him, implies a final incarnation. 

Resurrection (which is an eternal embodied state) is thus implicitly regarded as having a higher status than that of pure spirit. 

For me this means that when someone becomes a Christian, he expects (or at least hopes) that his death will be followed by resurrection; and therefore Not by another reincarnation. 

Against this understanding are ranged several of my spiritual mentors such as Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield, and perhaps William Arkle. Steiner and Barfield are explicit that the ultimate and eternal aim of Man is to be a pure (discarnate) spirit; and that incarnations are 'merely' a series of 'descents' into the material, from-which the spirit is intended to learn. 

I can only regard this combining of Christianity and reincarnation as an error - a metaphysical* incoherence. A failure correctly to discern and understand the core teaching of Jesus Christ and the demonstration that was his life, death, resurrection and ascension.   

And I think the source of this error lies in the (common, almost universal) failure to regard the Fourth Gospel (termed 'John') as the primary Christian scripture; because this text seems to state quite explicitly (and repeatedly) that followers of Jesus can expect resurrection to life everlasting after the death of their mortal bodies: which clearly (so it seems) excludes the possibility of reincarnation. 

A Christian who built his faith from the Fourth Gospel would (surely?) cease to expect - and to want - any further reincarnation? 

*Note - By metaphysical incoherence I mean a matter of incompatible primary assumptions; which therefore has nothing to do with 'evidence' or 'observation', because metaphysical assumptions frame the nature and status of evidence and observation.

Further Note - I am not saying that there never was reincarnation; in the contrary I assume that it certainly has happened in some times and places, and possibly continues to happen. What I am saying is that following Jesus Christ to Heaven necessarily terminates the cycle of reincarnations. 

Owen Barfield's central idea, and the one for which he is best known, is the evolution of consciousness - meaning that the nature of human consciousness has changed throughout history such that people in different eras and places had very different relationships with the world: these changes fall into three general categories of Original Participation, the Observing Consciousness and Final Participation.

He traces the evolution of consciousness mainly by observing the characteristic changes in the meaning and usage of words, which seem to display a cohesive development - and also looks at other cultural evidence. Barfield's idea of evolution in this regard is not natural selection, but a developmental process (akin to the growth and differentiation of a living entity): the emergence and unfolding of human destiny, interacting with the agency and free will of individual humans.

What is seldom appreciated or emphasized is that for Barfield the evolution of consciousness is divinely designed, and bound-up with reincarnation. To put it concisely, the reason for the evolution of consciousness through history is that this provides the necessary conditions by which successive reincarnations of  human spirits may learn what they require to develop towards divinity.

So, for Barfield (although this is hinted at much more often than made explicit) it is God who 'provides' the evolution of consciousness in order that reincarnating human spirits may have the necessary experiences they need to growth towards the ultimate goal of Final Participation - whereby firstly, and stepwise, the Ego or Self has become separated from its original 'unconscious' immersion in the environment and strong in its purpose and will - awake, alert and in-control; then secondly the now strong and purposive Self/ Ego comes back into a participatory relationship with The World.

To underlying rationale (the 'point') of the evolution of consciousness is, for Barfield, bound-up with the reality of reincarnation; and therefore those (such as myself) who disbelieve in reincarnation as the normal human destiny, yet who believe in the evolution of consciousness, need to be clear that we differ from Barfield; and are, indeed, denying the main reason for evolution of consciousness as Barfield understood it.

To put it bluntly: those individuals who are sympathetic towards Barfield's core idea of the evolution of consciousness yet who do not believe in reincarnation, need to explain what the evolution of consciousness is for - if not to provide the conditions necessary for educating the reincarnating human spirit.  

**

Note: My personal 'take' on reincarnation is that it is not the normal human destiny - but that reincarnation happens to some individuals for particular purposes - for instance, a sage, prophet or saint may be a reincarnate who has returned to assist in the divine work - indeed I suspect that many of the wise intuitive individuals such as Rudolf Steiner and perhaps Owen Barfield himself, who claim direct personal knowledge of the reality of incarnation, are themselves actually some of these rare and atypical persons. As a believer in Mormon theology, my explanation for the evolution of consciousness is that humans have a pre-mortal spiritual existence before being voluntarily incarnated into life on earth - and the evolution of consciousness allows pre-mortal spirits to be 'placed' - by God - into the historical era which best addresses their personal spiritual needs: i.e. their specific needs for mortal experience of a particular kind.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=reincarnation 

My assumption is that reincarnation can happen and has happened - but that it is rare and exceptional - and very far from the normal thing for most people.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=reincarnation

I state as a starting assumption that the Mormon view of life is correct - beginning as eternal primordial essences; we were made spirit children of God (that is, children of Heavenly Parents); who chose to be incarnated into mortal life and to die in order to enable spiritual progression towards deity - and that after our mortal death we are resurrected to continue spiritual progression, if we so choose and behave thus, towards the ultimate goal of full deity.

As an implication of this, there is a distinction between spirit, body and soul. We used to be spirit beings, but on becoming incarnated into bodies - en route to resurrection to eternal beings with bodies - the soul became a combination of the spirit and the body.

This is why mortal death is a terrible thing from which we needed to be saved by the work of Jesus Christ - because after incarnation, the death of the body is a tearing apart of that which has been fused, and it leaves the remaining spirit in a maimed state. This maimed state was described in the inhabitants of Hades or Sheol along the lines of being a demented ghost, without self-awareness or agency.

Resurrection is therefore a restoration of the unity of body and spirit which we have in mortal life - but (if we accept this gift of Christ) in a perfected and purged unity suitable for eternity.

In some primary sense, resurrection is a restoration of that 'old body' which the spirit was fused with in mortal life. So that resurrection is to be reborn with the same body - but that body made divine and immortal.

My point is that therefore reincarnation can only be either one of two:

1. Restoration. A return of the resurrected (purged and perfected) person to the world of mortal life - with the 'old body'.

The resurrected soul is thus restored to the mortal world instead of going to Heaven - presumably to do some divinely-appointed task (eg. be a prophet or angel).

2. Recycling. Some situation in which the first 'attempt' at mortal life is simply 'scrapped' - and the now-maimed human spirit is resurrected (i.e. has the integrity of its incarnated wholeness restored) but with the 'old body' restored but in a non-divine form.

With 'recycling'; presumably the first 'attempt' at mortal life had been such a failure (for whatever reason - perhaps the person did not live long enough to achieve what was necessary) - and they are simply given a second chance (if they choose to accept it) to experience mortal life a second time, and with what is in some essential fashion the same mortal body they had the first time.

My point is that if reincarnation is to be a return of a person to the mortal world and with a body, then that body must be the old-body restored; either restored in divine form or restored in a non-divine form - but the same body. The fact of having-been incarnated means that it can only be the same person if he also has the same body; and anything other than a completion of the same body represents a maiming.

In other words, our premortal spirit is not incarnated into mortal life as a ghost in a body-machine (the ghost being the real me, and my body merely its temporary dwelling); but that incarnation works by a profound process in which the spirit and body are made-one so intimately and wholly that they can never again be severed without loss of identity.

This is why true eternal life of the human soul is, and can only be, in the form of resurrected beings with bodies. But the consequence of this is that reincarnation can only be a very limited process, to achieve limited goals, as described above. 

What is not possible, I think; is that you or I could be reborn multiple times, in multiple bodies, in order to experience multiple lives for the purpose of some kind of stepwise spiritual progression.

This is impossible if my assumptions are taken as correct; because such a view of repeated reincarnation necessarily assumes that the soul is actually a spirit, which can - and does - inhabit multiple bodies like a diver putting-on and taking-off multiple diving suits.

The classic view of reincarnation is therefore one which requires that we are ultimately, in our essence, only-spirits - and that bodies are no more than secondary and exchangeable garments. And this seriously challenges why - if we are spirits - eternal divine life should be as resurrected and incarnate beings, instead of simply remaining as spirits.

Indeed, the reason for mortal life becomes hard to understand at all. Why should we want or need to gain experience as mortal incarnates (with bodies) if our eternal essence does not actually need a body? Why be resurrected, indeed why be incarnated in the first place?

So - my belief is that resurrection can occur, and has occurred - but only seldom and as an exception. The normal and destined progression is that each life goes through incarnate mortality only once, en route to incarnate immortality and aimed at increasing fullness of deity.

This further implies that the full benefit of mortal life can be, and usually is, achieved from a single mortal life and death; therefore, given that most humans in history have died in the womb or as young chidlren, the main and only essential benefit of mortal life must be the experience of death. 

There is, I feel, an artificiality about the common Christian idea that this - my mortal life - is bounded in one direction only; that is in the past by conception, while eternally unbounded in the future. 

I think this artificiality contributes to modern mainstream atheism. 

On the other hand; I am sure that this is my first and only mortal life. 

And, however things may have been before Jesus; I am pretty confident that the divine plan since Jesus is for as many as possible to make a permanent choice of where we go and what we do after this life: the permanent choice of salvation. 

We are (as a general rule, probably with some exceptions) supposed to (i.e. God hopes that we will) choose resurrected eternal life in Heaven. That is the divinely-desired permanent choice. 

Or...otherwise. And that 'otherwise' may not necessarily be permanent (although it can be - i.e. Hell) and 'otherwise' may in theory include the possibility of reincarnation. 

Yet to desire reincarnation (and therefore to reject the opportunity of Heaven Now) may be rare in reality in these days. It may be (I suspect) that most of the people who say they want reincarnation are saying so for spiritually-bad reasons; and that reincarnation may be a superficial cover-story for some other motivation such as refusal to repent a particular sin (or sin-in-general); or a fear-motivated refusal to choose to align-oneself with God, creation and The Good. 

i.e. For a modern Western person to say he desires reincarnation may in practice be another way of saying that he has rejected Heaven, and may well prefer Hell. 

Yet; when I look back before conscious life, my assumption is that I (personally) was continuously experiencing, learning, participating throughout - as a spirit-being, not incarnated. 

And I think it likely that it is memories of these personal experiences that may well lead to the phenomena which are usually interpreted as 'having experienced reincarnation'. 

In other words; some of my time before incarnation was - I'm pretty sure - spent in types of involvement with particular times and places of human history. Therefore it is quite natural for me (and others) to be very interested and concerned by the past, by ancestors, and also by other places than this earth... 

Such interest and concern may be rooted in actual experience and involvement - from before incarnation; when we were spirit beings. 

But, another vital understanding is of Time. 

I regard it as a potentially serious error that Christians adopt some version of the idea that all Time is present at one time, that past/ present/ future are actually all one. Such an idea (derived, apparently, from ancient Greek philosophers including Plato) is all-but standard and official theology among Christians; and probably has been since not long after the death of Jesus. 

On the contrary (by my understanding); I regard it as intrinsic to the Christian world-view that Time is real; i.e. directional, linear, sequential, cannot be reversed etc... 

So past really is past, future is not yet realized - and so forth. 

In other words, the 'common sense' idea of time, held by the uneducated and by children, is true.

Such a straightforward understanding of Time is necessary if we are to avoid paradox and incoherence when it comes to the idea of eternal beings that undergo change, development, evolution, transformation - salvation. 

If such changes of Beings are to be real - Time must be real. 

...Because Time is intrinsic to a Being - a Being is a dynamic thing, because Being is alive and conscious, and motivated. 

Plus; the deepest understanding of Freedom entails that our future is Not fixed; but may be changed by our free choices; and this agency is intrinsic to the chosen nature of Christian salvation. 

OK. I am making here the point that:

It would be A Good Thing if we became aware that this earthly mortal life we now experience is a stage in an unbounded continuum or sequence of experience in both directions. 

We each experienced a real past going back and back; and we confront a real future without limit.

The issue is what we do about this? 

Part of it is choosing the future; yet equally, part of it is acknowledging the experiences of our past (recent and remote) - because it is these from which we may learn, and which may transform our being. 

And that transformation may - potentially - be positive, and eternal.  

 

It is not that I regard reincarnation as impossible, rather that I believe it is probably very rare - and the reason I believe this is related to incarnation being irreversible.

We start-out as pre-mortal spirits - and we incarnate in order to make progress towards full divinity.

All Christians at least implicitly believe that to be resurrected - that is, to be incarnate, to die and then to be incarnated again with a perfected body - is 'better' in some vital way than simply to be 'a spirit'. That to be resurrected is a higher state than to be a spirit - otherwise why go to the bother of incarnation and death.

It also seems that there is a very general folk wisdom, spread across many religions and spiritual practises - that to die is to separate spirit from body, but that to be a spirit whose body has died is to be in some way maimed, incomplete, miserable, and indeed to be unselfed. This leads to the 'underworld' of post-mortem spirits - Hades, Sheol and the like - a world of partial and demented spirits, living in an eternal and unpleasant present.

What I take from this is that incarnation is progression, and it is also irreversible - once a spirit has had a body, the body cannot afterwards be detached from that spirit without some maiming, some irreparable damage.

Now - what this seems to mean for reincarnation is that it has to involve 'the same' person coming back. I think this is entailed, because the body would (I think) have to be remade from the surviving spirit - in something I imagine to resemble a complementary process.

In other words after death there is a maimed and incomplete spirit, and resurrection entails re-completing it with 'the same' body it had during life, but this time an immortal, perfect and pure body.

If this person was reincarnated then either they would have to return to earth with this immortal body - in which case they would be an incarnate angel rather than a resurrected human. An example would be the Moroni; who is an important human character featured in The Book of Mormon, and who then becomes the angelic agent for the rediscovery and traslation of the book by Joseph Smith.

(Note: There are also thought to be angels who are pre-incarnate or never-incarnated spirits.) 

A reincarnated human would, I take it, have to be re-born to human parents - and if a post-mortem spirit was indeed reborn in this way he would need to be provided with a new body that was nonetheless in some essential way the same body he had before - not necessarily the same in appearance, but the same in some essential fashion; because otherwise he would remain maimed; and also otherwise because if he had a different body when reincarnated, then he would not be the same person somehow reborn, but someone fundamentally different.

So I can imagine that a reincarnate might arise when (for whatever reason, perhaps a premature death such as being murdered - premature in terms of what they had been incarnated to accomplish, in a spiritual sense) - would instead of being resurrected, have their spirit 're-cycled' t be born again - but this recycling would be the same person, with a body that was the same in its ultimate essential quality (even if it did not look identical).

I expect that this thing has happened, and continues to happen - but such an idea of reincarnation apparently rules out some of the attributes and things it is supposed to achieve in Eastern religions.  It seems to rule out incarnation as other (non human) beings, and also the idea of reincarnation as a way of gathering very different experiences of being different kinds of person.

I think reincarnation is more of a second chance (or maybe third, fourth etc chance) to do what needs to be done - rather than a mechanism for incremental, stepwise spiritual progress. And this conviction of mine comes from my understanding of what happens to the spirit at death and resurrection.

Almost everybody who believes-in the evolution of human consciousness, also believes-in reincarnation - but not me.

While I think it probable that reincarnation was usual before the advent of Jesus Christ; I don't believe that reincarnation has been normal since then, at least among Christians - and has indeed been very exceptional (or absent). This for the simple reason that Jesus came to bring resurrected and eternal life in Heaven to his followers, and my assumption is that resurrection happens soon after biological death - which combination (as I understand it) rules-out reincarnation. (although perhaps not something like projected avatars...).

However I also believe that through history (and pre-history) the consciousness of men has developed according to a divine plan or destiny (consciousness has 'evolved' in an old sense of the word). In other words, Men at different points in history have thought and experienced differently - and this is evolutionary-development of mind is (of course) reflected in language (as documented by the work of Owen Barfield), religion, society, science, art and everything else.

But the key point is that socio-cultural change is driven by the inner change in human consciouness - and that inner change has inner causes - and not (or not primarily) the other way around (as most people suppose).

However, if for the past c. 2000 years at least, human souls have one mortal life, and if therefore we can experience only one mode of consciousness and one era of evolutionary history - then what is the value of an evolution in consciousness? Why have consciousness changing through human generations - if, for each individual person - consciousness is Not changing?

My answer is that each of us is unique, therefore each of us needs different experiences in our (one) mortal life; and the evolution of consciousness is a way that God uses to give individual human spirits the many types of experience that each needs.

Other ways of providing different experiences come from different families, different social circumstances, nations, levels and types of civilisation etc. But one of the important ways in which mortal life is tailored to the needs of individual incarnating spirits is through the phases and stages of the development of consciousness.

So that the simple hunter gatherer societies had (in important respects) a very young-child-like consciousness even among adults. Medieval Europe was essentially rooted in the developmental stage of an older child (with its fixed symbolism, hierarchies and rituals). Modern society is essentially the adolescent stage.

And there has never yet been (except among individuals and small temporary groups, perhaps) any time and place where the adult form of consciousness has prevailed - although that is the task of our stage of evolution: i.e. to become properly adult in our consciousness.

Our task (here and now, in The West) is to grow-up spiritually; to attain (and this must be an active and conscious choice, which is a reason why it has not yet happened) what Owen Barfield called Final Participation.

Given that an extended human life (beyond merely being incarnated then dying - which is the minimum and vital requirement for eternal resurrected life) is about theosis - which is becoming more god-like, more divine... then the core argument in favour of the value of reincarnation is probably that it enables more life experience and learning to be accumulated; on the basis that it is hard to suppose that everybody would get enough valuable experience in a single lifespan to enable them to become a god.

Against this, I feel that the following are significant:

1. We existed pre-mortally as spirits, and came to incarnation on earth voluntarily; God placed us each, individually, in a situation which provided what we personally most need for our spiritual benefits. Some people need very little - those who live long lives need a lot.

2. Further spiritual progression is possible after death - so life is not the only experience we get.

3. The nature of the most essential experience we get during mortal earthly life is mostly negative.

What I mean is that, to become grown-up children of God; what we most need is what Heaven cannot well provide - that is experience of sins, vices and suffering; of ugliness and lies; of meaninglessness, purposelessness, and isolation... the many negative aspects of living.

The example of Jesus may be instructive - because his experience in mortal life entailed experiencing a great number of negative aspects.

It seems that negative aspects are necessary for us fully to understand the positive aspects of Good - fully to understand Love, Hope, Faith it is necessary to experience Pride, Fear and Hate; Despair and Nihilism. On earth we experience these primarily as temptations - we do not need to yield to them, but everybody - including Jesus - is tempted by evil; and if, as often happens, we do yield to them, Christ's atonement means that repentance is fully effective at undoing the harm.

So, to return to the idea that reincarnation seems necessary to get the experience needed for spiritual progression; it seems plausible to believe that people get enough suffering during a single mortal life, that not many would need to come back for more.


Note: My belief is that reincarnation is possible, and happens - but it is not usual. Most people have one mortal incarnate life. William Arkle is the main source of the above ideas - however, it should be noted that Arkle himself did belief in reincarnation as the norm.  

It has been noticed for more than a century that there is a broad correlation between ontogeny and phylogeny. Ontogeny is the development of an organism through its lifespan, while phylogeny refers to the sequence of forms leading from earlier to later members of the same presumed evolutionary lineage. 

In terms of the evolutionary-development of conscience something analogous (and perhaps homologous - i.e. from the same causes) is seen in the change of consciousness during a human lifespan, and throughout human history. 

In other words, the sequential development of consciousness from early through late childhood, into adolescence and adulthood; is similar to the sequence of human cultural conscience from the hunter-gatherer nomadic (analogous to early childhood); agrarian/ classical-medieval (older childhood); modern (adolescence) -- and the human society of 'adulthood' lies in the future (if enough people choose that path) and corresponds to whatever emerges from the first glimpses of what I have termed Primary Thinking, heart-thinking, or the state of Final Participation.   

Why should this be? Why should our lifespan development correspond to the characteristic evolution of consciousness throughout history? 

The explanation given by Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield is a version of reincarnation: that each modern individual has been incarnated multiple times in historical societies through history; so that the eternal 'self' (which persist between incarnations) undergoes cumulative linear transformation as a result of experience and learning. 

In other words, modern people are more mature and developed than in the past, as a consequence of having incarnated many times before, in many types of society.  

But I regard reincarnation as having been (whether wholly or mostly) ended by the work of Jesus Christ; such that since the time of Christ's death, Men have (pretty much) ceased to reincarnate; but instead make a choice between accepting or rejecting resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

(I think that there may be exceptions when some of those who reject Heaven may be allowed further reincarnation; when the souls desire and may benefit from this in terms of coming later to embrace resurrection due to further experience.) 

Therefore I find myself advocating much the same scheme of evolutionary-development of consciousness - but without reincarnation as the explanation. What then is my explanation for (on average) 'more mature' souls being reincarnated in modern than in hunter-gatherer times? 

(Note: 'More mature' does not correspond to 'better' in terms of more-Good or more likely to attain salvation. It just means more-mature. Plenty of adults are worse people than most children; many people get worse as they grow-up; and probably more modern children would choose salvation than modern adults. Nonetheless adults are indeed, on-average, more mature in consciousness than children.) 

My answer to this relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny is to focus on the experiences we accumulate in pre-mortal life. 

Following Mormon theology, I believe that we all had an (eternal) pre-mortal existence as immaterial spirits. In other words; before we incarnated into mortal bodies we were immortal spirits; and resurrected-incarnated immortality must be preceded by phases of spirit immortality and incarnated mortality. 

The immortal pre-mortal spirits are each unique in terms of their original disposition and the differences due to different experience as spirits. 

I don't think all pre-mortal spirits do the same thing (i.e. they have different 'jobs' or functions); but some at least are 'angels' - messengers and workers for the will of God. 

(Other 'angels' are resurrected Men - so there are two types of angel: pre-mortal spirit, and post-mortal incarnate.) 

Some of these spirit angels are apparently closely concerned with life on earth: some are what is termed 'guardian angels', that work very closely with incarnated mortal humans. 

As the name implies, pre-mortal spirit angels do not have as much agency (or free will) as us mortal incarnates - they function more as intermediaries between God and mortal Men, conduits of God's will - they are, nonetheless, individuals, each an early step in Man's potential development. 

(Potential development, because some pre-mortal spirits may choose to remain at that stage indefinitely. Mortal incarnation is optional, chosen.)

For instance, pre-mortal angels may be a link Men to God's presence, God's will, and a spiritual between Men. They may also perform miracles, under direction of God. They are agents in making early Man more naturally and spontaneously spiritual than modern Man. 

In other words, an abundance of pre-mortal angels working closely with incarnate mortal Men may help account for the characteristics of Original Participation. Furthermore, these angels are building-up experience through living (spiritually) in close association with many of the various earlier forms of human society. 

Later in history, after the time of Jesus Christ; at various points some of these angels are incarnated as mortal Men; and bring into mortal life the same maturity they have developed as pre-mortal angels. 

Therefore, the evolution of consciousness through history is due to the greater maturity of more experienced incarnated souls; due to their having themselves lived-through much of previous human history - not incarnated, but in the form of spirits. 

Part of this maturity is the 'spiritual adolescence' that rejects the spiritual influence of pre-mortal angels; rather as teenagers reject influence-by and association-with children. 

One consequence of this scheme is that many of the pre-mortal spirit-angels live more like learners than helpers. 

Thus 'guardian angels' may actually be more concerned with their own learning than with providing irreplaceable 'services'. 

(Interestingly, this corresponds with the view of 'learner angels in some popular depictions - for what that is worth).

The above implies that some of us who are currently incarnated have probably been around and closely involved with human society and individuals at several or many times and places in human history - perhaps as pre-Christ reincarnates, and/or as post-Christ spirit-angels. 

Why, then, do most people not remember something of this? 

Well, some people do! And others have an implicit memory - like the memory of a dream (because spirit life has dream like qualities); but a dream than affects waking life.   

Or even more like the implicit memories of very early childhood - mostly unrecalled, but affecting us in many ways. 

If that is something like the way that these things work; then maybe many of us do have some kind of memories of this sort - perhaps evident in some of our innate aptitudes and preferences - as well as our varying degrees of innate, accumulated spiritual maturity 

 

The above is a live issue for me - because several of the thinkers on religion whom I most respect believe in (some version of) reincarnation - that is, of a 'system' by which people have more than one mortal, incarnate life.

Reincarnation is, indeed, apparently the usual belief of tribal 'hunter gatherer' peoples, who generally believe that souls are of a fixed number but may be re-born, and/or may transform to and from souls of animals and other beings; so it may seem that some intuition of this kind is 'built-into' human beings.

I suspect that what is actually built-in, but to degrees varying between individuals, is the sense or memory that our personal, individual life did not begin with our conception or birth; but that we had a previous existence before we were incarnated (i.e. before we got a body). 

This, for me personally, is a basic datum; it is a solid feeling  - that I personally existed before the time I had this mortal life and body.

But how to interpret this basic datum of pre-existence is where the major disagreement comes-in.

The usual idea among intellectuals in this modern corner of the earth over the past couple of hundred years is that this datum of pre-existence either does not exist or else that it is a delusion derived from wishful thinking, primitive and unscientific world views, immaturity, manipulation by ruling elites, or something or another... merely incoherent nonsense without any actual, or even possible, factual or evidential basis.

I am quite happy to acknowledge that the pre-existence datum is not universal to each and every individual; in the sense that many/ most people apparently cannot remember how differently they thought as a child, and many people apparently cannot introspect, and many people are dishonest; and quite a few people suffer from mental pathologies of various kinds, some of which so dominate their minds that they cannot be clear about much else... 

Leaving that aside, my personal conviction is that this pre-existence datum is true; and/ but also that this, here-and-now, is the first and only time I have lived on earth with a body - this is my only incarnation.

Such is, indeed, the standard Mormon view which convinces me on intuitive grounds and by personal revelation; but it is perhaps unique among the overall majority of mankind of the past and present (Hindus and Buddhists for instance) who assert multiple reincarnations, and the majority of Christians who have asserted that our personal life was created by God from nothing at some point at or between conception and birth.

Like the tribal hunter-gatherers, Mormons tend to regard pre-existence as a datum - so that our essential souls or spirits or selves 'always have been' in some form or another, before they are incarnated. It follows that at any point some souls, spirits, selves are not incarnated - this perhaps being the basis of the 'spirit world' of the unseen.

There is disagreement over whether, or how, these non-incarnated spirits are present in this world, and the possible extent of our interaction; but my current understanding is that pre-mortal spiritual life is engaged with mortal life on earth - that these spirits are present and involved; and that is, I think, why some people (so many people) have a sense of having lived before their current lives, a sense of having lived in the past.

In other words; the datum is (I think) having been alive before this incarnation, and present and engaged with earthly life; but there is a difference of interpretation of this datum with some people (who believe in reincarnation) feeling that the datum implies past incarnate mortal lives; while other people (such as myself, and some Mormons) believing that the datum is due to our previous spirit existence being active in earthly affairs.

But whether as pre-mortal spirits or in previous incarnations; what may be the purpose of our prior involvement with earthly affairs? In principle, the reasons might include that we were present: 1. As servants, for the good of the mortals alive in that era; or 2. As learners, gathering experiences aimed-at our own long-term spiritual progress.

Or both. We may have been 'angels' - i.e. spirits who were helpers and messengers of the divine; and we may also have been experiencing, learning and becoming more spiritually advanced.

(And there is, of course, the dark side to be considered. As pre-mortal spirits, according to what seems to be given in Christian scriptures and revelations, some unincarnated spirits are evil anti-angels - actively intervening in mortal life but against the divine plan: hinderers rather than helpers. And some mortal incarnates also take the same side.)

Anyway - my point here is that If we agree on the truth of the datum of a reality-based sense of our personal pre-existence and involvement in earthly affairs; then there can be agreement that each of us has direct knowledge of previous eras (times and places) based on our own experiences. 


Note: a further disagreement about the datum concerns the extent to which our pre-existence was defined. Some assert that pre-existence may include having lived as non-human entities, or as humans of the other sex; whereas my intuition is that we have 'always' been Men in general and men or women in particular; and that feelings of qualitatively-other identities are due to us having worked-with e.g. the other sex, animals, plants, minerals... rather than having actually-been e.g. the other sex, animals, plants, minerals. The confusion (as I interpret it) arises from our pre-mortal unincarnated and spiritual nature; which was less bounded, more overlapping, and with a much less-fully-differentiated 'self'.

*

I have just re-read (for the first time since I became a Christian) JD Salinger's three most religious stories: Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenters, Zooey, and Seymour: an introduction.

I enjoyed them all, but most appreciated Zooey.

RHTRC struck me as a perfect short story, but - in terms of Salinger's ouvre - transitional; Zooey is IT, a perfect short story that is uniquely and 100 percent Salinger; and Seymour crosses the line from short story into a kind of fictional essay.

*

As well as its brilliant character delineation, dialogue, density and description; I was fascinated by the religious aspect of Zooey - and the light it shone on the big unifying question of the Glass chronicles: why did Seymour commit suicide?

*

Zooey begins with Salinger's characteristic eclectic, syncretic 'perennial philosophy' New-Age-ish -type spirituality; and builds towards Salinger's most wholly-Christian epiphany - the famous Fat Lady parable at the end.

This trajectory is one which is - apparently - undergone by Franny, Zooey and Buddy; but not by Seymour.

*

Seymour's suicide was - I believe - caused by what Walker Percy termed the 're-entry problem.

(see WP's Lost in the Cosmos and my earlier blog posting http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/03/re-entry-problem-for-artists-and.html )

This is intrinsic to any worldly spirituality - perhaps to any non-Christian religion - which does not include a heavenly afterlife with a process of theosis - or movement of the human towards becoming a Son of God.

Seymour seems to have had only a vague kind of transcendental belief (he does not quite seem to believe that Truth, Beauty and Virtue are objective, real - and to the extent he does he regards them as immanent - within nature - rather than supernatural).

Indeed, Seymour's spirituality is characterized by a belief in reincarnation rather than afterlife.

*

Yet reincarnation (even if true) is no answer to anything - or rather it is merely a superficial answer to specific questions (such as explaining a person's character and behaviour) not ultimate questions.

Reincarnation merely pushes the problems of life backward or forward, without providing any understanding of the human relation to The Good, to reality, to meaning or purpose.

*

Seymour argues (I think) that this worldly life here on earth is perfect - if only we looked at it correctly.

The fault is with people and their perspective.

But Seymour apparently couldn't get the right perspective and keep it. He could get himself into the correct frame of mind for periods, but would at some point have to re-enter the perspective which saw the world as mundane, painful, full of ugliness, lies, cruelty, short-termist selfishness.

And it was this re-entry which he found unbearable; and which (it seems to me) led to his suicide.

*

Seymour simply could not live up to his own ideals, his own aspirations - could not maintain his own temporary achievements.

And, lacking a conception of Original Sin, and lacking a belief in the possibility of Christian salvation - he had nowhere to go, nothing to turn to but (as he imagined) extinction and (he hoped) an end to his own suffering.

*

*
Those who believe in a pre-mortal, un-incarnated, spirit existence need to have an answer to the question of why so many people apparently cannot remember anything about it.

The usual example is that there is a 'veil' placed between that phase of our lives, and now; between the eternal lives of Men and Angels dwelling in Heaven, and life on earth; and this veil is necessary to the fulfilment of our mortal tasks. We need to be on our own.

*

The difficulty is that while this veil explanation works for many phenomena, it doesn't account for the important fact that communications do apparently 'pierce' the veil, from time to time - sometimes those in Heaven seem to communicate with those on earth, and seem aware of the activities of those on earth.

Also, how to account for those of us who do feel a strong (albeit extremely imprecise and incomplete) conviction and memory of the reality of pre-mortal existence - and the numerous reports of such an experience throughout human history?

*

For example, evidence of pre-mortal life is widespread if is seen to be present in the form of belief in re-incarnation.

I interpret the intuitive belief in systematic reincarnation in such terms. I think it probable that true reincarnation is very rare indeed - done only for special divine purposes; but that the intuitive belief so many people have about their own personal reincarnation, is in reality a rational misinterpretation of what are actually true memories of their own pre-mortal life.

*

Anyway; why set up a veil that is partial and incomplete, and sometimes intended to be breached - when the veil amounts to a total obscuration for some people but not for others?

Well, such objections to 'the veil' are not critical. All mortal understanding is metaphorical (even when true), and all metaphors are incomplete and break-down when pushed. The metaphor of the veil may serve for the most important purposes.

*

However, my own understanding of the apparent-veil is different; my understanding is that there is not so much a material barrier, but a barrier of thought-forms which divides pre-mortal and mortal life. Specifically that, when looked at from a Heavenly perspective, mortal life is extremely slowed-up, as if we lived in a more viscous medium than Heaven.

The spirit existence of pre-mortal life was swift and immediate - there was no significant gap between thought and action because there was no body, and because the Heavenly environment had little resistance.

Heavenly life, and thought, was fluid and frictionless.

*

Earthly life, by contrast - and necessarily, as being vital to the purpose of it - is slowed-up and delayed.

Mortal, earthly life is experienced as having resistance; there is resistance interposing between the spirit and the body, and events (both creation and corruption) unfold in slow-motion (compared with Heaven) - sometimes with what is experienced as painful slowness.

Patience and prudence are always necessities in mortal life; and courage of course - exactly because of the potential for suffering, and the gap between the ideal and the actual.

*

From this I infer that our mortal memories of pre-mortal life are always present and for everyone - if we choose to introspect - but that these memories are of a life that was so swift and fluid and frictionless, that from our earthly perspective they are a blur.

Our memories of pre-mortal life are (by analogy) somewhat like watching a video recording sped-up a thousand-fold: we see just a blur of shapes and colours and sounds, creating a general impression that is mostly un-interpretable, but from which we may occasionally perceive the flicker of a recognisable picture or soundscape.

*

For those who are most attuned to these pre-mortal memories, most gifted and skillful at interpreting them, the experience may be perceived as an 'instantaneous' understanding of so many simultaneous things as to be indescribable.

Furthermore it is extremely difficult for our slow, viscous, meaning-oriented mortal memories to retain this kind of ultra-sped-up information - there is just far too much stuff to take-in and store, its sequence cannot be properly perceived, the elements cannot clearly be resolved.

*

I would push this metaphor even further. Quite often, reports of knowledge of other worlds, other lives, of Heaven has been experienced in an opposite way to that I have described: experienced as a static state-of-being - such as Nirvana. Experienced as if it was mortal life on earth that was 'swift and slippery', and Heaven that was unchanging: an eternal, unitary state of being.

My explanation is that when something is sped-up fast-enough, it becomes perceived (by mortal minds) as static and unchanging.

Try the experiment of doing this with music - as the playback is sped-up, at first the music is experienced as faster and faster, but a line is crossed when the notes blend together, and a much slower and more gradually modulating chord-like sound emerges (representing the overall dynamics, the average pitch, the tonality etc.).

This is my explanation for how Heaven is perceived by mortal minds, and how the limitation of earthly human perception may mistake what are in reality extreme degrees of swiftness and fluidity for (what appears to be) slow, gradually modulating, even static states of being.

*