In some earlier blog posts, later collected as an essay, I talked about a diamond as an image of the oversoul or higher self, with each facet of the diamond corresponding to a different incarnate personality. Here I'd like to expand on that idea, taking the purely imaginary case of a particular oversoul and its incarnations.

Let's say that this oversoul has incarnated three times, first as Enos, a peasant; then as Redbeard, a pirate; and currently as Dave, a podiatrist. In this case the diamond has three facets. They are separate and distinct from each other, but they are all part of the diamond itself.

While incarnated, Dave is largely unconscious of the oversoul. I use the word “unconscious” deliberately, because I think that the unconscious (or subconscious) mind is the point of access to the higher self. The higher self is not the subconscious; on the contrary, it would more accurately be characterized as a superconsciousness. Both the subconscious and the superconscious are part of what F. W. H. Myers termed “the subliminal self.”

Dave is not entirely cut off from his higher self; intuitions and inspirations come to him from the oversoul, by way of dreams, meditation, or reverie. And it is possible for Dave to cultivate his openness to such information, expanding his awareness. Still, during his earthly lifetime, the oversoul is mostly out of sight – not unlike the 9/10 of an iceberg that lies submerged.

As a young child, Dave remembered a previous life in vivid detail – the life of Redbeard the pirate.* By the age of eight, these memories had faded. Young children have a more immediate connection to the oversoul; they do not draw a clear distinction between reality and imagination, or between the products of conscious thought and subconscious imagery. They are open to input from their higher self in a way that most adults are not. Dave remembered Redbeard's life, not because the Dave personality had previously existed as the Redbeard personality, but because both personalities stem from a common source, and the young Dave was in contact with that source.

It seems he was most likely to remember only the oversoul's most recent incarnation. He remembered Redbeard, but not Enos. If each incarnation is a stepping stone to the next one along a path of continuous growth, then it might be expected that the current personality would be most closely in touch with the last one. The Dave personality is, in some ways, an outgrowth of the Redbeard personality. In some cases, this outgrowth results in the carryover of specific personality traits or even physical traits (birthmarks or birth defects corresponding to wounds or injuries sustained in the life if the previous personality). 

Children are more likely to remember a past life that ended abruptly, usually because of violence or the sudden onset of disease. Most spontaneous past-life memories reported by young children are of this type. Possibly this is because a life interrupted represents a partially missed opportunity, which the new incarnation is intended to correct. Redbeard, not unlike many pirates, lived fast and died young, before he could learn the lessons planned by the oversoul; Dave represents the chance to complete this phase of the oversoul's education.

Dave, as an adult, has a near-death experience in which he finds himself, in his own recognizable human body, meeting departed friends and loved ones in a beautiful garden. The experience plays out this way because he is still identified with the Dave personality and not with the oversoul. At a certain point in his NDE, Dave encounters a being of light, which he first interprets as Jesus (a holdover from his religious upbringing) and then, more broadly, as God. Actually, the being of light is the oversoul, which Dave, who is consciously unfamiliar with it, interprets as an outside entity. He simply cannot imagine himself as part of this radiant superconsciousness, which is so far above his own limited awareness. But as the being of light draws nearer, he finds himself merging with it – though only partially and temporarily. For Dave, this is an unforgettable experience. It feels as if he has merged with God, become one with everything, and attained infinite wisdom. In fact, however, he has merged – not with God – but with his own oversoul, and his wisdom, while greatly expanded, falls well short of omniscience.

Sometime after his NDE, Dave goes to a hypnotist who puts him in a deep trance and regresses him to a point before his own birth. In that state he experiences a "between lives" existence, as reported by the hypnotized subjects of Michael Newton, Brian Weiss, and others. Because he has been regressed to a stage before birth — that is, before the Dave personality came into existence — he is now identifying with the oversoul, which is the source of that personality. As a result, Dave's recollection of his between lives existence differs from his NDE. In his NDE he was still identifying with the Dave personality, so he experienced himself having Dave's body, meeting Dave's friends, and seeing religious imagery consistent with Dave's belief system. In his hypnotic regression, he is not identifying with the Dave personality but with the oversoul, so he experiences himself without a human body and without Dave's personal characteristics. Typically, Newton’s subjects saw themselves and their friends (who are other oversouls) as shapes of light in different colors, moving through an abstract geometrical landscape. They had a full recollection of their various incarnations, as well as a full memory of their between-lives schooling and associations.

In short, the being of pure light moving through an unearthly geometric environment is the oversoul, while the recognizable human form moving through a garden paradise is the incarnate personality.

But which one is the real locus of consciousness? Is it Dave or Redbeard or Enos or the oversoul? Arguably, each one of them represents the same locus of consciousness, only viewed from a different perspective. It's a Flatland thing. Flatland is the classic 19th century satire by Edwin Abbott that presents two-dimensional people living in a two-dimensional world. When one of them is lifted into Spaceland, our three-dimensional plane, he sees things from a whole new perspective. Some of what he sees would have been inconceivable to him when he was still in Flatland. For instance, he can now see inside a windowless Flatland house even if all the doors are closed. Why? Because Flatland houses have no roofs (there is no third dimension, hence no up or down). The displaced Flatlander, hovering over the flat sheet of paper on which Flatland is drawn, can simply look down and see the interior of the house. It's a very simple and obvious, but only if one has the perspective afforded by the third dimension. My guess is that the spiritual realm has additional dimensions not only of space but of consciousness, and that these additional dimensions provide the perspective necessary to resolve what appear to be impossible contradictions in our realm.

When the hypnotist regresses Dave to an even earlier point, he remembers the life of Redbeard the pirate and even the life of Enos the peasant. But he reports those lives from a somewhat detached perspective, because he is still predominantly identifying with the oversoul. I remember that one of Newton’s patients, after discussing a life lived as a woman two or three hundred years ago, spoke some words to this effect: "the experience was good for me, and I believe it was good for her, too." (I’m paraphrasing from memory.) I always found this rather confusing. The hypnotized subject seemed to be treating the incarnate woman as a separate person, rather than as himself in a different guise. But in terms of our present hypothesis, the statement makes sense. It is the oversoul commenting on a particular incarnate personality. Dave's oversoul could be expected to make the same kind of statement: “The experience of the Dave personality was useful to me, and I believe it was a positive experience for the Dave personality itself."

Incidentally, hypnotic past-life regression is often explained in terms of cryptomnesia — the purported ability to remember even the most trivial details of books and movies that the person encountered decades earlier. Though these details have been consciously forgotten, they are aid to be retained in the subconscious and to be brought forward under hypnosis. There’s no doubt that many, though not all, regression cases can be explained this way (see The Search for Yesterday, by D. Scott Rogo), but the explanation itself raises interesting questions. By what mechanism does the mind retain all these details, and how does hypnosis afford access to them? I would suggest that the details are retained by the superconscious, and that a deep hypnotic trance opens the door to this fund of knowledge. I'd also suggest that the life review reported in some NDEs involves immersion in this memory archive. And since the oversouls collectively represent all the souls that have ever incarnated, they collectively have a complete record of all memories and subjective experience — a treasure trove known in mystical circles as the Akashic records. 

Continuing his spiritual exploration, Dave starts going to mediums. Some appear to have genuine paranormal abilities. He finds that they talk about different “levels of vibration” corresponding to different spiritual planes. He begins to suspect that the higher vibrational levels correspond to higher dimensions of consciousness — that the mediums are really talking about changes in the frequency of consciousness itself. (The channeled book The Unobstructed Universe makes this point.) The Dave personality exists at one vibrational level, while the oversoul exists at a higher vibrational level. Moreover, as Dave learned from his hypnotic regression, the oversoul itself is part of a select group of oversouls who work together on their mutual development – what might be called a collective oversoul. And it is certainly within the realm of possibility that each collective oversoul is part of a still higher collective, and so on, as consciousness expands in widening ripples.

Dave also finds that discarnate personalities speaking through mediums say they must lower their vibrational level in order to communicate with those of us on earth. He speculates that a deceased person, having transitioned to the afterlife, has greater access to the oversoul and thus is raised in vibration – just as he was, temporarily, when he partially merged with the being of light. The thin pipeline connecting the Dave personality to the oversoul's superconsciousness via the subconscious was expanded, albeit briefly, into a wide channel. He suspects that, had the NDE continued, he would have retained his own personality but also enjoyed access, on a continuing basis, to a wider spectrum of the oversoul's awareness. The deceased people speaking through the mediums are in this condition of expanded consciousness, but to communicate with earthly human beings, they must restrict their newfound access to the oversoul and shrink down to something close to their original limitations. This is why spirit communicators often say that they can only express a fraction of who they now are and what they now know. It is also why spirit communication is so difficult for those on the other side.

Another thing Dave notices is that a medium never says that a given communicator is unavailable, having already reincarnated. Skeptics sometimes seize on this fact to question either mediumship or reincarnation. But if the diamond hypothesis is correct, then we would expect all deceased personalities (Enos and Redbeard, for instance) to remain in the spirit world; reincarnation involves the manifestation of a new personality extruded from the oversoul, not the recycling of a previous personality.

What Dave is learning is that he is part of something larger than himself, which is in turn part of something still larger. His ego may resist this idea; it wants to be Mr. Big! His spiritual journey involves letting go of the ego, at least to some degree. Not coincidentally, by diminishing his attachment to the ego, he reduces his identification with the Dave personality and increases his identification with the oversoul, which he may experience, subjectively, as “the witness” who observes his thoughts and actions in the background — a witness who becomes apparent during those meditative moments when he quiets his chattering mind.

101069220-163488547r.530x298

*I'm using some artistic license in having the young Dave recall a life as a pirate, since children who recall a past life almost always remember a life that ended only a few months or years before they were born. Redbeard presumably died much earlier than that. 

Posted in , ,
  1. Amos Oliver Doyle Avatar
    Amos Oliver Doyle

    Thought-provoking comments Julie on 01/05/16.
    I think I tend to ‘feel’ what you are struggling to put into words. I need to think about it for a while.
    I do believe that we banter around the word ‘love’ too much saying that we love something when we really mean that we like something. That is, there is no deep emotion tied to the ‘liking’. I also think that perhaps some people have never really experienced emotional love for another person at all and therefore do not understand what it feels like.
    My wife tends to say “love you” to almost all of her friends at every encounter. Somehow that takes the edge off of it when she say that to me. And, for some men, maybe all men, feeling “love” (not lust) for another person is not something they easily come by. I wonder if any man, growing up during a Victorian belief system or under its influence would or could ever say or perhaps feel emotional love for something, especially another person. Men love their dogs but have a difficult time experiencing the same emotion for other humans including, after a while, their wives.
    Patience Worth wrote;
    “Who said that love was fire?
    I know that love is ash.
    It is the thing which remains
    When the fire is spent,
    The holy essence of experience.
    – AOD

  2. Amos Oliver Doyle Avatar
    Amos Oliver Doyle

    Julie,
    Love comes with its burdens and responsibilities. If one emotionally loves another person one tends to want to protect that person, to save that person from pain and adversity,
    Love also imposes restrictions. Perhaps one is most self-censored around those one loves, not fully expressing one’s thoughts for fear of experiencing the loved-one’s disapproval or rejection. I think there tends to be a loss of freedom when we are around those we love not only of verbal expression but of action. – AOD

  3. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    “Patience Worth wrote;
    “Who said that love was fire?
    I know that love is ash.
    It is the thing which remains
    When the fire is spent,
    The holy essence of experience.”
    I love that, Amos, and thanks for posting.
    But as for self-censorship around loved ones: can you *really* imagine me fearing *anyone’s* disapproval? 🙂

  4. David Chilstrom Avatar

    Michael used “Flatland” as a metaphor for the typical experience of limiting one’s notion of self to the currently embodied persona. Exploring the Flatland metaphor literally, rising up vertically and looking down, I see that David Chilstrom is a Portlander, and venturing further up I see that he is also a citizen of Washington County, an Oregonian, a U.S. Citizen, part of the Cascadia ecosystem in the North American continent, in the Western Hemisphere, on the planet Earth, circling the star Helios in the Orion arm of the Milky Way Galaxy. It is true to say that I am a Portlander, an Oregonian, a Cascadian, an American, a Terran, subject of Helios, in the Milky Way Galaxy. These are all valid aspects of my identity, various human and ecological entities of which I am part and all circles of existence within the “Flatland” of my human persona.
    Perhaps these ecological “circles” that my embodied persona resides within are analogous in some way to the spheres in which discarnate beings are alleged to inhabit. Though my higher, greater, diviner, whatever self may have a grander perspective in a larger sphere, in terms of this sphere of existence at this time, I am the embodiment of that self. In truth there is no separation, but from the vantage point within the constraints of the “David” persona, that expansive identity seems to be a separate self. The appending of adjectives to the word “self” is part of the problem, but even within our human persona there are sub selves such as “husband”, “soldier”, “citizen”, “Christian”, etc that constrain our sphere of identity. And across time we have each inhabited an infant persona, child persona, teen persona, etc. A common core runs through all of these personas, but each has somewhat different interests, passions, obsessions, focuses, and so on.
    Of course, depending on experience, there is more or less an element of speculation as to the extent of self. I take it as a matter of faith that there is much more to me than meets the eye, and I am at peace with the measure of uncertainty that attends all matters of faith.

  5. Bruce Siegel Avatar

    Michael, sorry to keep doing this! Please post this instead.
    ——————
    Julie said:
    ” It seems to me that anything that obliges us to become more emotionally vulnerable and tolerant strengthens our ability to love others including, at least for some, other species too, and to feel compassion where there might once have been blind indifference.”
    Excellent, Julie. I now see what was behind some of your earlier comments, and am glad you said this!
    Two points:
    I was talking primarily about love as we experience it in the spiritual dimension. And I stick by my thought that it’s the opposite of fear.
    It’s a key point and an important model for us here on earth. Because it says: the more we allow ourselves to love, the less we fear.
    And yes—that’s true even with respect to those we care about the most. Loving our children means, in part, not letting our own fears distort the relationships we have with them.
    I may not be a father, but I’ve had close relationships with scores of kids I’ve taught over the years. And I know how easy it is for me to pretend, at times, that I have their best interests at heart, when what I’m really doing is protecting and serving myself.
    Any parent who says he hasn’t faced that dilemma is not someone I can easily relate to.
    A good model for parental love is how the Being of Light in the NDE sees us. Does he love us and care about our well-being? Experiencers are astounded at how deeply he does!
    Does he fear for us? There’s not an iota of evidence to suggest that word is applicable.
    Now I’m not saying this type of love is 100% reachable here on earth. But can it be a model for us? It is for me.
    And the second point is, I was disappointed that you simply let slide my earlier response to you. Talking about Jung, I said:
    “I just want to add that I can relate to this. (If he’s saying what I think he is.) Though in my comments here I often talk about love with respect to my mystical experiences, in my day-to-day life, the situation is different than you might expect. (Or maybe not.)
    It’s easier for me to know love in relation to art, music, my iPad, a project I’m working on, or a character in a movie, than to feel it for friends.
    We each have our strengths and weaknesses. Our own maze to navigate.”
    You asked about Jung’s failings, and I was responding in the most meaningful way I knew how—by mentioning an aspect of myself I once saw as shameful.
    Fortunately, my attitude is changing. I agree with you that growing in compassion is our key challenge here on earth. And doesn’t it stand to reason that means gaining compassion for the person we spend the most time with—ourselves?
    So yes—I’m learning to relish my own unique adventure with love, different than anybody else’s.
    Thanks for bringing up, and sticking with, this topic, Julie. What’s more meaningful?

  6. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    I hear you, Bruce, and I’m thinking. Really I am. (Even though, as an INFP on the Myers-Briggs scale, it’s far from my natural modus operandi.) 🙂

  7. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    @Bruce: I didn’t let your point about the mystica v day-to-day experience of love. In fact, most of my subsequent comments were related to that.
    You are identifying the mystical state as a state in which you feel (one feels?) profoundly loved. My point is that being loved and loving others are two entirely different experiences.
    My position is closer to Amos when he writes:
    “If one emotionally loves another person one tends to want to protect that person, to save that person from pain and adversity.”
    *That* is what I mean when I use the word fear. I think we’re simply into semantics here. I can substitute the word ‘fear’ with the word ‘concern’ – indeed I think I did so earlier. I don’t accept that we lose our feelings of concern for those we love simply because we have entered a different state of being.
    Also, as I said earlier, there are many reports of warnings from those on ‘the other side’ to suggest that the protective instinct does not end with the transition we call death.
    We learn to love, we develop our skills in this area of our lives. Or perhaps we choose not to. A large part of genuine, mature love is selflessness. It does not seem plausible to me that feelings of ecstasy should remove from our soul all feelings of concern for those we leave behind – at least not if we *truly* love.

  8. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    Ps. Sorry for the gaps in some of the sentences above – I’m afraid you’ll have to fill them in for yourself. As always, I’m galloping along trying to do three jobs at once with very little time for serious writing – and even less for editing!

  9. Bruce Siegel Avatar

    Julie said:
    “I can substitute the word ‘fear’ with the word ‘concern’ – indeed I think I did so earlier.”
    I focused on fear because you began the discussion using the words fear and trepidation, and you later seemed to double down on that emotion by bringing up fearful NDEs.
    “It does not seem plausible to me that feelings of ecstasy should remove from our soul all feelings of concern for those we leave behind – at least not if we *truly* love.”
    I agree. And I’ll go further and say that ecstasy of that sort is rooted in our sense of being *one* with those people. So to say we’re concerned about them is almost an understatement.

  10. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    And yet we remain individual people/personalities, at least that’s my understanding. The reason why I elaborated on the word ‘fear’ is because you seemed to suggest that such an emotion could not persist beyond death and that love – in the sense of being loved – is all that’s left. I brought up the issue of negative, fearful NDEs simply as a retort to that postulation.
    Fear/concern (a matter of semantics) for others is an aspect of the ability to love sentient others. We feel for them and for any distress they might suffer. I simply can’t imagine how or why that would be in any way different in any life beyond this one.
    But I’ll shut up now, because this is getting to feel a bit like bickering. 🙂

  11. Douglas Avatar
    Douglas

    The higher/self concept, demonstrated wonderfully via Silver Birch’s ‘diamond’ metaphor, is very well explained by Seth.
    In Seth’s account, the individual personality is of intrinsic value and although part of a lager gestalt, or ‘personality essence’, it is valued in its own right and it’s uniqueness and identity is preserved within the higher gestalt.
    Both the gestalt and the individual personality are equally valued, because they are, in some kind of hyper dimensional way we do not yet understand, One – one and distinct – at the same time.
    This is an approach that traditional eastern approaches like advaita get wrong IMO – they disregard or try to demonstrate that the human personality is an illusion to be seen through and discarded – a mistaken view in my opinion.
    Don’t get me wrong, advaita is *great* for bringing us to half the picture, but it is just half the picture. For the full picture, the individual personality has to be accepted and valued as well, not be gotten rid of.
    I prefer the ‘paralogical’ approach of author Tim Freke to other non duality approaches. Tim’s view includes the personal as well as the oneness. They are paralogically intertwined. His term, ‘paralogical’, refers to the transrational approach of both/and thinking – embracing the paradox, rather than conventional either/or thinking which limits our thinking of these topics.
    Seth also understands this. Why does it always come back to Seth?
    Maybe it’s because he was on to something!

  12. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    @Bruce: I think I now perhaps understand better what you’ve been getting at. Yesterday I had a ‘peak experience’ (in Maslow terminology). I get them fairly regularly – which means I must be in reasonably good psychological health – but this one was particularly intense and put me in mind of your comments.
    If the NDE is similar but more intense in impact, then I can understand why all sense of apprehension for everything and anything might disappear. That ‘God is in His heaven and all is well with the world’ feeling is very convincing of the notion that there is nothing to fear and nothing to fear for others either.
    I’m still thinking about it, but thought I’d let you know. 🙂

  13. david r Avatar
    david r

    Fear in a loving sense is called caution no?
    And love in families between parents and children and to some extent cousins/relatives, is instinctual too, no?
    I want to hang onto the instinct part here for a bit. I mean, people have been known to automatically put themselves in danger to help total strangers. That’s interesting isn’t it?
    I haven’t looked into whether children have hellish NDEs. Has that ever happened?

  14. SPatel Avatar
    SPatel

    Interesting parallel with the Diamond and something a friend pointed to in Sri Aurobindo’s writing:
    “The Spirit is the Atman, Brahman, Essential Divine.
    When the one Divine manifests its ever inherent multiplicity, this essential Self or Atman becomes for that manifestation the Jivatman, the central being who presides from above over the evolution of its personalities and terrestrial lives here, but is itself an eternal portion of the Divine and prior to the terrestrial manifestation—para ̄ prakr.tirjı ̄vabhu ̄ta ̄.
    In this lower manifestation, apara ̄ prakr.ti, this eternal portion of the Divine appears as the soul, a spark of the Divine Fire, supporting the individual evolution, supporting the mental, vital and physical being. The psychic being is the spark growing into a Fire, evolving with the growth of the consciousness. The psychic being is therefore evolutionary, not like the Jivatman, prior to the evolution.
    But man is not aware of the self or Jivatman, he is aware only of his ego, or he is aware of the mental being which controls the life and the body. But more deeply he becomes aware of his soul or psychic being as his true centre, the Purusha in the heart; the psychic is the central being in the evolution, it proceeds from and represents the Jivatman, the eternal portion of the Divine. When there is the full consciousness, the Jivatman and the psychic being join together.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Michael Prescott's Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading