One of my first experiences with reincarnation was with a, trying to think of the right word, self professed investigator. I have mixed feelings about it myself.
Quite often, these people do put a high importance on physical similarities, at least outwardly. There's side by side photo comparisons and paragraphs that are filled with observational and superficial information that anyone can look up for themselves online. On the whole, it's not proof of anything, as a few of you have noted and it does leave one wondering what the point of it all is.
If these people stated up front that making past lives comparisons was simply a casual hobby or something they did for fun, I might be more ok with it, even though it's not really my realm of interest. It's just that often these people and websites are wrapped in a sort of mysticism I find off putting. That is just my personal opinion though.
And in having had several FPLs myself, I can understand how the OP feels in that perhaps it's either a little invasive and or exploitive. When I first started doing my research, I was hurt that people were making their own assumptions and inferences without knowing the details, but then I also realized that I have nothing to prove to anyone other than myself. People that want to know and learn more, will seek out it, the ones that don't, won't and will settle for surface level info anyway.
Hi Totoro,
Having recently begun some exploring in terms of Brian Stalin's techniques, I can say that it has its own logic (though I have not used it in my own PL exploration so far).
First, he
does believe that physical similarity is a very important indicator. This is because he believes that there is a "physical image" that we carry with us, and which manifests strongly (my words, not his) in reincarnation. This is something that comes up regularly on the board, but is considered a very secondary (or even unimportant) indicator by most here. His view is as follows:
People often wonder why it is that we come back looking very similar to how we appeared in our former existences.
This has to do with the residual self-image we retain of ourselves at the back of our minds.
This image stays with us when we enter dream states and also remains with us after death, when the spirit takes on a familiar form that the mind has grown accustomed to.
He seems to use this in two ways: (a) as a confirmatory indicator when available; and (b) as a basis for exploration of (and often debunking) other folks proposed PL connections.
But, it is not primary in his method.
Second, he is very, very
anti-channeling, and considers that most of what people consider is coming from some enlightened and exalted spirit (Amun Re, etc.) is just low level junk from various low-level or even evil entities. (I have always been very leery and generally repelled by channeled info and sources, so he finds in me a willing audience). And, as a related postulate, he is very
anti-trance. I can see the connection between these two, as he considers that trance is just the gateway or state that allows the intervention and influence of such entities, rendering any data obtained inherently unreliable. Hence, he largely discounts hypnotism and regression via hypnotism as a viable and reliable source of PL information. (I suppose he might consider such information to possibly be confirmatory, but I am not sure on this. If so, it would mean that he basically reverses the relative positions and importance of regression vs. appearance held by most PL researchers).
Third, he is very
pro-dowsing/pendulum work. This appears to be the primary method he uses (to me at least). He seems to consider that proper understanding and use of the pendulum allows access to objective truth (via our own higher self's connection to the Akashic record) while in the conscious state, bypassing possible sources of interference that might taint the data in a trance state. (These are my words, not his).
So, for him--if I am understanding him correctly--I think the order would be: (I) Dowsing indicators (properly and consciously obtained) are primary, (II) appearance is highly confirmatory, and (III) other things may be confirmatory, but cannot override the first two. This is, at least, my first impressions on his approach and methodology. Of course, it seems to leave memory and regression out of the picture, though I suppose he might include these in category III above (as icing on the cake perhaps). Overall, it is a very different approach, and I have a hard time with the postulate that a pendulum properly used can bypass all interference and access objective truth, but its not outright crazy (though it does run contra most current PL exploration methodologies).
Cordially,
S&S
PS--If I could accept his postulates, I would probably find it to be a very useful approach. Probably in addition to, rather than totally in place of, existing techniques. However, where there is a conflict, which to choose would be the issue.
PPS--There may be a connection between Stalin's "physical image" and Sheldrake's "morphic fields"--so that would be a possible angle for further exploration. In most respects, I think what I have seen of Sheldrake's hypothesis (which I think has great merit), would support Stalin's approach on this, as do some other occult ideas related to subtle bodies. But I am not sure I like the idea, especially as I am not all that happy about having to look like a close facsimile of my current self through all future lifetimes--yikes and yuck!
I was definitely hoping for some improvements there.
