Saturday, April 16, 2005

Several Souls, One Life?


More than one soul cannot share an individual life, under normal circumstances. The rule is, one soul for one body, per life. This cuts way down on confusion, and helps keep matters in order karmically. In any average life, the center of response, and responsibility, is the conscious mind, usually expressed as ego. The only purpose of the conscious mind is to make decisions and choices, to sow and to reap the "seeds" of karma. Its function is not to control the world, but simply to experience it.

It is therefore supremely logical that cosmic law is arranged so that only one soul gives rise to only one single consciousness, or conscious mind. If dozens of people "believe" that they were all St. Francis, for example, this situation is nothing more than hyperoveractive imagination combined with egotism. Just fyi, I do not claim to have been the lovely saint, but he has been a very important role-model, for centuries.:)

At times, a very great spiritual person might become an "archetype." This is the case with both Francis and Jesus, and many others. An "archetype" in the Unconscious is a being or image so powerful that it strongly attracts minds to itself. It is probable that weaker minds, lacking discernment, can really come to believe that they were these powerful minds from the past. But that subjective, personal conviction proves nothing, and does not constitute an objective argument. In most cases, it is simple overcompensation for feeling worthless, or a pitiable cry for attention.

To answer sometimes complex spiritual questions, the principle called "Occam's Razor" is important. This is actually a principle borrowed from science, and goes back to the Middle Ages. It says simply that if you must choose between a simple answer and a complex one, the simpler is likely to give greater truth and understanding. And when many people all claim to "have been" John, "Melchizedek," or Merlin, the simplest and clearest explanation is hyperimagination combined with hyperegotism.

No comments: