I've now read more than half of Nanci L. Danison's book Backwards – enough to make a few provisional comments about it. I've also read parts of her blog, which is quite interesting.
I can't evaluate the biographical details of her book. I don't know what the facts surrounding her near-death experience might be. All I can do is assess her claims on a subjective basis – namely, do they make sense to me? Do they help to explain things that are otherwise inexplicable? Do they cohere with other accounts that I find basically reliable?
There's nothing particularly "scientific" about these criteria. I'm not sure that metaphysical speculation about the nature and purpose of reality fits within the confines of science or of the scientific method. Answering these questions is a personal journey that each of us undertakes on our own.
Danison's main point is that, while we think of ourselves as human beings who have a soul, we would be more correct in viewing ourselves as souls who temporarily inhabit human bodies. This may sound like a distinction without a difference, but it turns out to be pretty important. What it means is that there are two loci of consciousness in each of us – the limited, reflexive, instinctual, not especially reflective or self-aware consciousness of a human being, and the larger, more comprehensive, nonjudgmental, unconditionally loving consciousness of the "Light Being" that inhabits its human "host." What we think of as the soul is a complex interplay or blending of these two levels of consciousness, with one or the other predominating in any given situation.
Personally, I find this idea useful in explaining humanity's dualistic nature. Most of us have probably had the experience of feeling primitive, raw, violent emotions at one time or another, and may have been a little shocked at ourselves for exhibiting this animalistic quality. And there is no doubt that the human organism can behave much like an animal; the fight-or-flight response, for instance, is not controlled by the reasoning mind, but originates in a more primitive part of the brain. A great deal of human experience seems to be the product of biology, and yet purely biological explanations are hard-pressed to deal with the higher accomplishments of the human species. It's hard to see how there could be any Darwinian survival value in the ability to compose a symphony or perform Fourier analysis. To all appearances, it really does seem as though we are composed of two parts: our biological, animal nature, which is mechanistic, limited, and oriented toward survival and reproduction; and our higher spiritual self, which cannot be explained by reductionism and is not necessarily "practical" in terms of everyday earthly existence.
If you think about it, I suspect you will find many examples in your own life, and in history, of the tug-of-war between the animal side of human nature and the spiritual side. This is not to say that the animal side is "bad." Danison takes pains to explain that, as a living organism, the human being is naturally motivated to defend its own interests and secure its own safety, to compete with other humans for scarce resources, and to favor close biological relatives or sexual partners over strangers from different tribes. Without the instincts for self-preservation and reproduction, without the sometimes cruel qualities required for survival in the wild, human beings would have faced extinction long ago. Just as we would not regard a pack of wolves as "bad" because they don't adhere to "civilized" standards of conduct, we shouldn't regard natural human behavior as bad simply because it fails to live up to the more advanced, but (in earthly terms) sometimes impractical, standards of the Light Beings.
In this respect, it's worth pointing out that the greatest messengers of spiritual truth often counsel us to do things that seem quite impractical. Jesus' admonitions to turn the other cheek, "resist not evil," and leave our livelihood to Providence ("the lilies of the field …") are beautifully expressed, but probably could not be carried out as an actual design for living – at least not for very long. Perhaps a few advanced individuals could live that way, but most of us would probably end up as victims of more aggressive persons or at the mercy of nature. The advice, in other words, seems to relate to another sphere of existence, in which ordinary human concerns over self-preservation and practical planning are irrelevant. The sphere of the Light Beings, perhaps.
The idea that there are two levels of consciousness in each of us may be hard to accept (though personally I find it quite plausible); but Danison goes further, explaining that there are many more levels of consciousness. She writes,
During my beyond-death experience I was astonished to experience a transition from the "self" I had known in the body through higher and higher levels of consciousness, each of which I remembered having lived before. Each one felt like the "real" me, only with far greater mental capacity, memory, and abilities as I progressed through the process. I understood at last that what we really are is a compilation of multiple levels of consciousness, each of which perceives itself to be a singular, unique person. Each has its own method of origin, lifespan, and innate nature.
In other words, each Light Being undergoes many incarnations, experiencing an almost infinite variety of situations. But why? The answer, according to Danison, is deceptively simple: God, which she dubs Source, has split itself into countless Light Beings for the purpose of experiencing everything that can be experienced. Although in our human incarnation we may long for a feeling of oneness with the universe,
… the human experience is about separateness. Individuality. We are here precisely to experience that feeling.
In Danison's view, there can be no bad experiences when viewed from the perspective of the Being of Light. The most miserable, wretched earthly life will still yield a trove of sensations, perceptions, insights, and memories treasured by our higher self. In fact, the whole idea of good and bad is a strictly human perspective; and while necessary to bring order to human society, it's not part of a higher plan. The higher plan is simply to maximize experiences of all kinds, whether "good" or "bad."
This viewpoint reminds me of Gnosticism, which similarly holds that God wishes to have a broad variety of experiences and is not interested in traveling a narrow, moralistically defined path. The early Christian Gnostics were classed as heretics by more conventional Christians in part because they did not believe that any behavior was actually good or evil when viewed from a higher perspective.
But why would anyone choose to incarnate if the life in question will be one of misery and pain? Danison suggests that the experience could compared to watching a horror movie or reading a depressing novel. Many of us seek out these experiences because we know that the movie or book is only a fantasy, and it takes up only a little of our time without any lasting negative effects. From the point of view of a Light Being, Danison says, earthly life is not quite real, but more like a dream, and a lifetime of pain and deprivation is only a passing, momentary event.
If there is no good and evil from a spiritual perspective, then how can we explain persistence in the belief in eternal punishment, which finds some support in nightmarish or hellish NDEs? Danison writes,
Some year-death experiencers (NDErs) report trips to hell after they leave their bodies. My understanding of our nature as Light Beings leads me to believe that those NDErs may not have gone far enough through the transition from human to Being of Light to lose their combined human/soul personalities. So they manifested events born of human fear, as though they were still in the body.
Alternatively, these NDErs may consider the life review, with its associated emotions, to be a form of punishment expected only in hell…. Yet it is temporary. All hellish or unpleasant events experienced after permanently leaving the body after its death are temporary, and last only so long as it takes you to come to terms with the end of your human adventure and make emotional peace with yourself.
Presumably, so-called earthbound spirits who remain attached to the earth plane or who wander in limbo also have not completed "the transition from human being to Being of Light." Since time is a quality of the earth plane but not of the spiritual world, they may remain lost and confused for what seems like a considerable amount of time by earthly standards. (This is my interpretation; so far I haven't come across anything in Danison's book that addresses this issue.)
Overall I find Backwards intriguing and helpful in resolving certain questions about dualism, morality, and the purpose of life. That's not to say I agree with everything the author says. One area where I differ involves her assertion that we all manifest our own reality. She writes,
Tomorrow morning, when you awake, you will manifest into reality precisely what you went to bed believing about your world. You do it from memory. From habit. If you are not sure about this, remember that for centuries Europeans lived on a flat Earth. They experienced our planet as flat, saw it ending at the horizon, and therefore believed Earth to be a plate. Reality stayed that way until Christopher Columbus and others disproved human perception by sailing past the horizon without falling off.
I have some problems with this. To begin with, educated Europeans of Columbus's day did not believe that the Earth was flat. They knew it was round; their disagreement with Columbus was that they believed the circumference of the globe was too great for a voyage from Europe to India to be practical. Columbus disagreed, thinking the Earth was small enough to allow a direct westward voyage. In fact, the authorities were correct, and Columbus was wrong. Columbus's voyage would have ended in failure if he hadn't come across the Americas, which he mistakenly believed to be India.
Leaving aside this historical issue, I don't believe that anyone has ever "lived on a flat Earth." Certainly many people have believed the earth was flat, but I don't buy the idea that their belief changed physical reality. External reality on spiritual planes does appear to be a direct projection of consciousness, but I don't think the physical world is equally malleable. Indeed, I think this is one of the key differences between the Earth plane and spiritual planes.
For that reason, I'm skeptical of the idea that we can change material reality by adjusting our thoughts and expectations, by saying affirmations, or by meditating intently. I'm not saying these practices have no effect, but I'm not convinced they can yield tangible benefits in most cases – though in some remarkable (one might say "miraculous") cases, they do.
Another thing I don't particularly like about Danison's book is the title. I realize this is petty, but I just don't think Backwards is a very good name for the book. I understand that the author is telling us that we've got it all backwards, starting with the idea that we are human beings with souls rather than souls (or more correctly, Light Beings) enjoying a symbiotic relationship with human organisms. Nevertheless, if I'd published the book, I would've called it something else.
So that's my two cents about the fifty percent of the book I've read so far. I know that one or two commenters are reading it, and others have looked at Danison's blog. What do you think?