[First draft. Second revision May 5, 2009]]
Can we establish an ethical and scientific basis
for regression work?
by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia)
In a European group much controversy recently
arose about questions of ethical and scientific aspects of regression and even
“elitist” claims in that respect. The discussion about this concerns everyone
everywhere who works with regressions and needs to be taken to a public level
in the professional community. I herewith wish to give answers to criticism
and outline a basis for our work.
[In this text I for simplicity mainly use the
male form instead of over and again repeating “he or she”, “his or her” and the
like.]
What are souls?
One point of criticism was that everyone speaks
about souls and even soul fractions and yet no one seems to be able to define
them.
If there would be no self that survives the death
of the body, there could be no reincarnation and past-life regression would
be nonsense. The only valid form of regression would be the attempt to go back
into memories from the childhood and, at most, the prenatal state in the womb.
But what is a soul? Since we do work with regressions
under the hypothesis or theory of reincarnation, it is obvious that we are dealing
with souls. For us, a simplistic and pragmatic definition is quite sufficient:
the soul is your self in a state that can exist without a body. Various doctrines,
religions and philosophies talk about divisions of this self in at least two
parts: soul and spirit, and up to five and more parts like various sheaths (Sanskrit:
kosha) or levels which constitute a kind of “anatomy” of that self, but it is of little or even no value to be concerned
with that in the practical work with regressions. Hence we may for practical
purposes simply regard the soul to be all of that together.
Where is a soul?
An increasing number of physicists to day share the opinion that cosmos
is multidimensional, however hard this is to imagine for us. But it can be grasped
by means of the mathematics of theoretical physics, which is, however, quite
abstract for most of us... The thing is that our organs of perception are three-dimensional
and accordingly also our mind, our thinking and our consciousness are. Many
find it hard to believe that there could be anything beyond that, only because
their perception is limited to only the “material”. We are blind for the rest.
But if we (normally) don’t perceive the soul that is out of the body, temporarily
or definitely after the body’s death, where is it then? It will be in other
dimensions, as will entities be. When we die, we “wake up” in a realm of higher
dimensions and slowly begin to remember that we were there before. Soon we have
no problems with the perception of these realms, since the soul’s organs of
perception are multidimensional and perceive them easily. We do know that from
regression experiences, in which we had the client continue to relive what he
or she experienced after death in a past life. So is that then true, or not?
It really makes a lot of sense and one important thing is the reproducibility.
In science a phenomenon is usually regarded as probably true if it is reproducible,
that is, if it is the same or highly similar whenever it occurs – but for many
not in the case of such experiences, because of their “scientific prejudice”.
Actually we all the time were multidimensional, but got so trapped in three-dimensional
perception that we forgot about other realms. Some few people, however, perceive
more and are clairvoyants or psychics (the real ones – there are, of course,
also pretenders).
Thus we in a regression that includes spiritual and “esoteric” aspects
open up a window to such realms, which has proven very helpful, indeed. It would
be too bad if we were to close that window, only because some don’t believe
in it, and resort to more materialistic techniques – a “regression” to a more
“primitive” stage of regression procedures. That most of us know so little about
these things doesn’t mean that it is wrong to open that “window”, because the
results are the “proof of the pudding”.
Are there soul fractions?
Psychological mechanisms of regression and memory
Another point of criticism was that there would be a lack of clarity
as concerns psychological mechanisms in regression and remembering.
Who does really know in conventional psychology what is actually going
on in and with a client? Here, too, there are various ideas and theories, and
it will just have to be even more so in a regression therapy which includes
the option of a previous existence in another body. But every responsible and
well-experienced regressionist does know that his way of working really works
for his clients – or he soon wouldn’t have any…
It would, of course, be nice if we could reach some kind of a “unified
theory”, but it would most probably be in a continuous state of revision, and
the one who is regarded as being right to day may be wrong to morrow, and the
other way around… So far we can honestly and realistically only deal with variations
of a theme much like different orchestras and conductors play the same music
in their own ways and sometimes even with other instruments. Imposing strict
concert rules may make the music rather unpalatable…
Imposing a minimalistic, “scientific” and materialistic world view
Specific harm and damage can be caused by omission of spiritual aspects.
Those who don’t believe in them cannot possible know that they have the “whole
truth and nothing but the truth” and they must, therefore, let those who believe
in them work accordingly, as long as they achieve positive results that way
and cause no real harm (at least not more than their critics). A “materialistic”
regression cannot be as complete as one which involves spiritual aspects. It
may be that some who include such aspects talk about them in a rather sloppy
and “esoteric” manner and find it hard to define what they are doing, but that
doesn’t necessarily mean that what they do is wrong. It often rather means that
they deal with aspects and concepts which go beyond the materialistic and “scientific”
world view but yet are valid. Regrettably, “scientific prejudice” tends to be
limiting factor in our world.
So if we practice with cases which actually do fit a theory that there
can be attachments of souls and even entities, who can with a good conscience
(and karma!) attempt to stop them? After all: souls is what we are dealing with!
Souls which are in the client’s body to day and before were in other bodies.
That is the very basis of our work! And who am I and who are you to declare
that a soul cannot for a period have an intermediate state without a body between
incarnations? Of course we must, and definitely so, consider that option! And
that inevitably leads to the possibility that such a soul in an intermediate
state could in certain cases attach to a body that isn’t his. If a regressionist
under this assumption comes to the conclusion that this appears to be the case:
should he then not help the client to become free from such an attachment, only
because there are some who don’t believe in it? That could, again, be harmfully
excluding what might have helped the client and leave him in his inappropriate
state, and that I would call irresponsible.
If we “shave off” all that appears too “esoteric”, too diffusely “spiritual”
and not scientifically based (according to the actual stage of science and the
“fashion of the day” in psychology that can well be quite different to morrow)
we may need some 10 regressions to solve the client’s problem that now isn’t
rarely solved in one single session. That would mean that not much more evolves
than another kind of psychoanalysis. That would actually be a kind of “regression”
of the technique back from the new to essentially the old, even if the latter
is performed in a quite new manner. There are severe doubts about the effectiveness
of psychoanalysis, see: http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/Freud.htm.
I once had a client, who afterward informed me that one regression had helped
her much more that a whole series of psychoanalysis sessions she had gone through
before.
Are there entities?
So what is an entity? If we according to all evidence and empiricism
have to assume that a soul after leaving the body can spend a period in an intermediate state,
then it is a kind of entity in that state. But the common
use of the term “entity” rather refers to a soul-like being that never (yet)
had a physical body and hence never was incarnated. Who am I and who are you
to tell that there is no such thing? Experience and empiricism do indicate that
such entities do exist and that they can also attach to a client.
As there are “good” and “bad” people, there will also be “good” and
“bad” entities, even though “good” and “bad” are largely subjective concepts
which change with the frame of reference (such as religion). Can a person be
really bad? Do we not nearly always find that an evildoer has become such a
one due to a traumatic and violent childhood? If only we care to research his
history… Thus “good” and “bad” often become quite relative concepts. That the
person ha caused much suffering is, of course, really bad, and we want to judge
him heavily. Yet: if we know his background, how can we judge? As Jesus said:
“Judge not, least you will be judged.” And of course it is our duty to help
the victims and stop him from doing such things, but that is another thing than
judgment. Actually he will himself be in more need of help than many others,
even though he doesn’t realize it.
So we have to assume that there could also be “good” and “bad” entities.
The “bad” ones cause harm to incarnated souls and the “good” ones support and
help them. The latter we may call “spiritual guides” or angels or what have
you… And if they can be assumed to exist, who can with a good conscience want
to forbid a regressionist or healer to attempt to cooperate and work with them?
Again, imposing a more materialistic view would do harm in the sense of excluding
a way of working that could be very helpful for certain groups of clients (and
leave the latter to keep much of their problems).
Do we charge clients with non-original contents?
It was questioned whether it is really needed to use suggestions and
imaginations to establish a bridge to a past life, since this could charge the
client with “non-original contents” – and it would furthermore be questionable
whether or not the experienced “past life” would really be one of the client’s.
Modern conventional psychology works to quite an extent with images
and imaginations, such as the guided affective imagery (German: katathymes Bilderleben) of Hanscarl Leuner
– and other methods. When we in regressions use images and imaginations as a
bridge to past memories (in this or an earlier life): what is the real difference?
What do we do wrong that they don’t? Properly handled, these are not suggestions,
but aids – and the client then knows that they are – and then it appears highly
unlikely they would impose some kind of a foreign view on the client.
Do we really impose a world view of reincarnation on a client who
comes to us because he shares this view? Would he come if he didn’t? And if
he experiences something that he understands to be a past life and that really
helps him to solve his problem, what relevance do then discussions about the
reality of the experience really have for him? Isn’t there rather the danger
that such discussions could even contra-productively reverse the so far reached
therapeutic effect and the client at the end loose the help offered?
Is it then a past life and is it his past life? The strong evidence is when the experience really helped
and the client has become free from a possibly life-long problem! As a German
saying goes: “Who heals is right!” If it really is a past life, or not, becomes
a rather secondary question as long as it works! The main thing is unavoidably that the client achieves the help
he sought. Often there is, though, enough evidence in the “story” that does
fit facts of the past. But no therapist has the time and means for extensive
historical research of individual cases and can much better use his time for
other clients who are waiting… And if it most probably is a past life, is it
his past life? How could
the experience be of a real help if it wasn’t? How could he become completely
free from a life-long fear of heights (and that in maybe only one regression!)
through experiencing how someone else fell down and died? Or in whatever case from a story that isn’t at
least essentially a part his own? I believe that he could not! He may reduce
his symptoms, but not become definitely free, and the problem may later pop
up again…
Tapping into an energy that isn’t yours
Symbolical aspects of the soul
Above, theoretical divisions of the soul in parts that constitute
a kind of hypothetical soul “anatomy” were touched upon. In many ways of regressions
some kind of more or less symbolic “assistants” are used, such as the “inner
guide”, “higher self”, “inner physician” and the like. This is quite analogous
to certain forms of imagery in more conventional forms of psychological work.
It is obvious that if the client had a past life, the memories from it will
not be in his brain, or he would to day know at least a bit of a past life even
without a regression. These memories will be in his soul and came with it into
the present incarnation. Using such “assistants” we invite the soul (or an
appropriate part of it) to give
help and support with knowledge that the brain has no access to. In a proper
regression, we also make it clear to the client that this is just what it is!
If the memory would be only in the brain it would be lost when the
body dies. Hence it is very obvious, indeed, that the soul is the carrier of
deeper memories. Otherwise past-life regression would (again) be nonsense. So
what is the “unconscious self”? In my opinion there are two levels of unconscious
memories:
The latter kind of memories may be triggered by circumstances to pop
up by themselves, but hardly the former kind. So if we really want to access
the deeper memories, those of the first kind, we need to involve the soul and
invite it to “assist”, for which such “imagery” is really very helpful indeed.
Or we would much more than else be “poking in the dark” and again limit our
methodology to exclude valuable options for helping the clients.
Conversation in a hypnotic state
It was claimed that conversations take place while a client is in
deep sleep and yet replies to questions. Or that he is subject to a treatment
while in a deep state of hypnosis, but remembers nothing of it afterwards. It
was suggested that this isn’t regression therapy but hypnotherapy. So what is
hypnosis?
Isn’t all regression work hypnotic?
A popular expression to day is to talk about “altered states”,
which would include both states above but nevertheless still leave them as two
subgroups. Therefore “altered states” is just a common “heading” under which we
are still to differentiate between hypnotic and non-hypnotic states.
To day most regressions will be more or less non-hypnotic and the
real hypnotic approach is used less than in earlier periods of regression work.
But we of course cannot draw a sharp line between the two states, which “mix”
in an intermediate “gray zone”, so that even a non-hypnotic regression can become
a bit “pseudo-hypnotic”. This is not our aim, but we can deal with it if it
does.
The real aim is with any induction procedure to achieve a by-pass
past the rational mind and reach a more or less direct communication with the
unconscious mind. So if the client snores in the regression (which I have never
experienced…) it will rather be due to the relaxed state of the body than anything else, and the sought
communication with the unconscious mind will nevertheless be established if
he speaks and answers to our questions. If he doesn’t remember the experience
after the regression, it was probably more or less intentionally hypnotic, in
which case it was a mistake of the regressionist to not give the suggestion
to remember everything afterwards…
Rational or intuitive regression?
A regression carried out in a rather rational way by the regressionist,
out of his rational mind, will not be as successful as a regression carried
out in an intuitive way.
After long experience it in the ideal case becomes increasingly intuitive. The
regressionist sometimes “out of the guts” does something he cannot really explain,
which turns out to be just the right thing. This is what we should achieve.
When is a regression terminated?
Some seem to put certain requirements for when a session can be considered
to be terminated.
Summary
Summarizing what has so far been discussed it becomes obvious:
There is some talking about “soul fractions”, mainly
in the sense that apparently a part of the soul could split off and leave the
main soul, much like loosing a limb and continue living without it. Can such
things happen? There is an age-old shamanistic doctrine that it can, and shamans
in such cases go “soul-hunting” to find the missing part and reunite it with
the main soul. This is claimed to happen, e.g., in a heavy trauma, as if that
“soul part” escapes to no more suffer. Since this view can be an effective help
to the client in such a case, the theory is at least practically meaningful,
since we can work with it and have positive results. This is, however, not a
common part of regression therapy. But if a regressionist chooses to apply it
in a suitable form and can effectively help clients with it: what is then wrong?
So what happens in a regression and what and where
is a memory? There will be various “schools” related to different regression
techniques and ways of practicing regression therapy, and no one can really
know exactly what goes on! These different theories will all in part be true
and in part wrong, i.e., there will be none that at the present state of knowledge
can grasp the whole real picture … and if someone wants to impose his own idea,
it becomes a dogmatism that will do more harm than good. At the present state
of the art, the only plausible way is to respect each other’s theories – knowing
that we ourselves could be
wrong, just as well as they could, at least in part – and respect each other’s
way of working according to an own theory as long as it gives positive practical
results and doesn’t cause more than minimal harm – and that only exceptionally
in rare cases – to any larger extent than other ways do. There will be no way
that could not theoretically
cause some form of limited and temporal harm in very special cases, just as
there is no way that is 100 % helpful in each and every case – or the way of
practicing limits itself to minimalistic help, leaving out important possibilities,
as the saying goes: throwing the child out with the bathwater.
With “scientific” I here mean: according to the established
world view of the official science in its present state (which could well be
quite different to morrow). Imposing such a view is something that is of the
potentially harmful nature mentioned above. The attempt to dictate how a regressionist
should work and what he should believe would lead to omission of various valuable
additional techniques which are being used successfully, only because someone
else doesn’t believe in them.
It has also been objected that a client could in a
regression tap into an energy that isn’t his. If that is really so in an individual
case, I see good reasons to assume that he unconsciously did so already before the regression, and that
it is from that (at least in part) that he has his problem! Or he may have attracted
that energy because of his problem. If it should really be a foreign energy
of whatever kind, and if it relates to the problem, there will be good reasons
to deal with it…
Still one more point of criticism concerned the use
of models like “inner child”, “higher self”, “spiritual guide”, “path to the
light”, “mountain of knowledge”, “book of wisdom” and the like, since this doesn’t
come from the client but is offered to him for support. This could, it was
claimed, impose a
world view on him that isn’t his own.
Many want to claim that it is. But what does the Greek
word hýpnos really
mean? It means “sleep”! So if the client is not more or less asleep, this doesn’t
fit the definition. We have to differentiate between two alternative states
in a regression:
For a responsible regressionist there can never be
any “must”. It is to be regarded as finished (at least for this time) when it
is obvious enough that the problem should be more or less solved, which means
that an obvious cause has or obvious causes have been re-experienced and all
soul-injuring negative emotional energies acquired from it or them have been
released and dissolved – and replaced with new energies (such as symbolically with light energy). Or in
certain cases when we see that we this time can do no more (e.g., due to unconscious
resistance we in spite of all effort couldn’t overcome) and that we should continue
maybe a week or two later (experience shows that it may then work much better).