• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

Historical research- can it help or hurt? (merged)

Colibro

Senior Registered
I've posted a few times here, but have held back from more avid participation primarily because I'm more interested in stories and memories that can somehow be validated, than in arguments or speculation about the nature of the universe, souls, etc. The reason is, I feel that is probably futile for us to debate things that can not absolutely be proven until we cross to the other side. Especially when the debates become heated,and people's feelings get hurt, which I hate. However, we can use information obtained through dreams, regressions, intuitions, etc., to point us toward evidence that reincarnation may actually exist. My problem- a while ago in some thread, I posted a story about a dream I had that took place in England in the 19th Century. This dream has haunted me for years. The dream's scenario involved my husband, a sea captain, drowning, and I had a name in the dream- Captain Davies. I woke myself up with the name in my head. There was also a boy present in the dream-my son, will spare you all the details for now. Today,my curiosity got the best of me and I began to do some research on the net. I found a historical account of something similar to what happened in my dream occuring near the Isle of Piel in Great Britain. The widow in the story has my same initials now, and would have had a young son the age of the boy in my dream at the time of the drowning of her husband. However, her husband was not Captain Davies. Davies was the captain's mate who took over the ship after the first captain perished. The details of the account were sketchy, but some things oddly coincidental to my life now- place names, and favorite names that I have always had being names of her family members. My question- could it be possible that I found this experience so easily, or is it dangerous to inform my mind of details, that were I ever to be regressed, I might be able to recall and trick myself into a self-verification?
My basic question- can doing too much research about something alter your sense of whether the memories are real or not....???
Did I find my past-life, or am I just indulging a fantasy?
 
By all means, learn all you can from the recorded history. When you are regressed, you will know when you observe things differently than reported. Follow the memory. This is a great way to prove things to the only person that counts, you!

I do not know where the idea of "it is just something you read and put together with creative imagination" came from, but it is simply crap. Frankly, such creativity is a rare gift and very much needed. Creativity knows it's own bounds. Most people are honest intentioned. Civilization could not exist otherwise.

Every idea construct transfer from a novel , for example, is your past experience aiding the idea by putting it into the context of your experience from all time.What a miracle of fact. If this is not true, we must then not really exist! For most of our memories must be lies!

We are so terribly inflicted on by bad psychology. I think most psychology is an UNCONSCIOUS grift. These people invested a lot of money getting the vellum to make a lot of money. The more there are in the field, the more the hokum! Tables turned on end here!

I hear lawyer and accountant jokes all the time. Send em' all to Auschwitz comments etc.
Ad Nauseam, really. Hey, I got to use Latin, after all.

Are the shrinks and psycho's just as bad? Besides, they did not have to do Latin! They got off cheap, syndrome dis and syndrome dat. On the other hand, I got to read Livy in Latin.
 
Thanks for your reply, Mr. Johnson. In fact,it is doubly appreciated because out of the people who frequently post on the forum, I very much enjoy your ideas and edgy remarks- they are well-reasoned and well-seasoned; you never lose your sense of humour. I get the feeling that you are quite an interesting character, and a benefit to the general flavor of the world. A worthy balance to do-gooders and pragmatists like me.
In response to your comments-
I think I agree with you mostly, except that I really don't trust the human brain. I have never had a regression, and am not sure what happens during one. I do know that I have the craziest, most complicated and intense dreams of anyone I know. I dream every night, vividly, and wonder- if my sleeping mind is capable of drawing on such symbolism (whence it comes, I don't know), would my hypnotised or regressed mind be capable of it also?
I think that writing, dreaming, and creativity comes from somewhere. Be that the collective unconscious, the wellspring of existence, a video game program operated by an oblivious teenager in another dimension- I don't know, and am not inclined to argue. I am more of a painter than a writer, more of a dreamer than thinker, and my creative works are indeed informed by spiritual impressions, and aethestic judgements that come intuitively. And yet- it is impossible for me to say that everything I imagine has existed, or has at one point been a part of my general experience. For example, if I want, I can imagine myself having a passionate affair with an unattainable movie actor- I can imagine my conversations with him, imagine the scenarios and settings of our meetings- I could have two-sided arguments with him in my mind and such. I am good at imagination- especially visualization, but these images are always fantasy. My relationship with this actor would only exist in my mind.
So my problem still remains- I don't trust my brain. i have a very huge imagination and a very strong propensity to be credulous. In a strange contradiction, this makes me a skeptic.
I guess that the only solution is for me to get "regressed". (The trendy,nifty thing to do nowadays I suppose!) But would it prove it to myself? I don't know. And at some level, I really truly want to be able to prove it to somebody else,too. Because everybody that I'm close to thinks I'm a weirdo for even entertaining the idea. Or more than that- wanting very much to truly believe.
By the way, my Latin has deteriorated in the four years since I last studied it in school, but Catullus was always my favorite. He was a big,sappy,chocked full of hormones dorkball, but still my favorite. And would-be reincarnated widows love bleeding hearts.
Roman past life? Well that's another topic.
Gratias tibi ago, amice.
Michelle
 
I've found that historical research helps me only after the fact. By that I mean that after I get an insight, experience a flash of memory, or have a dream of a past life, when I come upon something in my research that validates and agrees with what I've experienced, it gives me confidence in that I learn to trust myself more fully.

I think research is very important. How many times have we heard or read someone's recollections of a past life, only to know that something they refer to is historically inaccurate or anachronistic? However, this doesn't mean that they're wrong--memories of so long ago can be confusing when viewed through the fog of death and rebirth.

I think anyone who is interested enough in their past lives should also conduct a good amount of historical research as well, and not be afraid to find out that they're wrong -- or right!

Steph


------------------
"Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting." --Sidney Harris
 
Can historical data really validate past life experiences?

Can historical data really validate past life experiences?

In this forum many people have emphasised that historical data and suchlike information must be used to validate past life recall, particularly where famous personalities are involved. This seems somehow to be part of an effort to gain academic and objective legitimacy for the whole arena involving reincarnation. Admirable though this may be I cannot help feeling that although superficially attractive, the whole effort may be somehow misguided. It is plainly reassuring to be able to delve into the historical past and to discover some really interesting details concerning one’s partly revealed past life (which in itself immediately colours that life). I support this kind of research but there are a number of questions that continually arise.

For instance, the intimate details one remembers are very often quite far removed from those constituting the historical record and this raises the question as to the validity of that self-same record which is oftentimes sketchy at best.

Even more worrisome is the sense that what we see as the historical record is in fact a fully conscious construct through which karma pulses in such a way that both the present and the past adjust them-selves in an interactive manner. This may mean for instance, that an individual personality genuinely adjusting behaviour in a past life regression (repenting so to speak) might be able to change the present as a direct result without anyone noticing the terminal effect from one instant to the next. Comment?

Regards



------------------
Robin
 
In many of the cases in which past-life historical verifications seemed to have been disproven, they actually turned out, upon further research, to be correct. This was true in the Bridey Murphy case, for example. That case was never really logically debunked--the debunkers simply forced their views, unfairly, on the public and it stuck.

A couple brief observations--recorded history is often biased, even if it hasn't been deliberately re-worked. Past-life memories can be partly accurate and partly inaccurate, just as our memories of events earlier in our current life may be. But I am beginning to think that recorded history is *even less* accurate than past-life memories are.

I don't think that remembering a past life is time-travel, like in "Back to the Future". However, the past tends to repeat, based on karma and life-lessons. If a lesson is really assimilated, and the associated karma is resolved, then that scenario may stop repeating. In that sense the past is changed, inasmuch as it doesn't manifest again. And it loses its hold on you, so your present is changed to that extent.
Steve S.
 
Hi Goldenage,

I teach Art History, and it is stressed that there are no plain facts in the history of art, or in any history of anything else for that matter, only degrees of plausibility.

Every statement no matter how fully documented -- is subject to doubt, and remains a fact only as long as no one questions it. Every condition that lays as a fact in history is temporary, and the various historical fields are too vast for anyone to encompass all of them with equal competence.
 
History documentation has certainly worked for me. I have posted this before . Have not the foggiest where. Actually, I would live to gather all my posts,but do not know how exactly to proceed.

This is a VERY long story, so I will keep it to the specific incidents. I was Ulysses S. Grant. I dug for years to disprove the whole thing. Just got in deeper. Anyway, I was regressed to the period leading up to Appomattox Court House and the period after that. These are the only two regressions I saved.

When you are regressed you know the difference from what you are viewing and what the history books say. I found a number of "glaring" departures from the history. In the interviening years, all were resolved. It took a decade.


Just before Leaving Appomattox, I saw FOUR Rebs, not the three of history texts. The glaring historical difference was resolved a number of years later when reading Sylvanus Cadwallader's " Three Years With Grant". This is a relatively rare book. The only edition was published in 1955 or so. Cadwallader is present at Appomattox. He notes that fraternization has already begun . He saw a young reb officer in discussion with a young Federal Officer. Both are watching from the road fence. To Grant observing from the porch , there really were four rebs, the young reb officer being the fourth.

I am later describing a meeting with Andrew Johnson wherin AJ wishes to hang everyone he can lay his hands on. I narrate to the regressee that I have to talk to AJ. I gave my word, if need be I will turn the Army on him. If I did not, Sherman would have done so. I believe that is treason. In front of a dozen Radicals to boot! I never heard of any such incident. I was given a book about Jeff Davis called "The Long Surrender" by Burke Davis.There is a footnote about this meeting in Davis's book. I was dumfounded but another glaring error was explained.

Then there is the famous controversy about Lee's Sword. The genesis of the whole controversy was in some people catching a momentary lapse by Lee. The verbal codicil to the Offer of Surrender was that OFFICERS COULD KEEP THEIR SIDE ARMS. It came up in the questioning of the Regressee. Lee put his hand on his Sword. Grant, (I) quickly caught the lapse and slightly nodded to show Lee not to go further. Lee then realized the effect of his nervous placing of his hand on the Hilt of his sword and put his hand back on the table.

There are a number of similar differences betwen the history books and what I viewed in the second tape. I have not listened to either tape for quite a few years. In fact, I just recently found them going through old junk to make space.

I knew the history version while being regressed and answered what I viewed. I also viewed an event I never knew had happened. The whole sword thing is on tape including an offering up of " Had he gone further, I just might have had to take the sword".

There are a couple of other differences that I have simply forgotten. Undoubtedly, the differences would pop up again if I listened to the tape of the regression. The resolution of these items removed any doubts for me after 10 or more years of trying to wiggle free from the whole thing.

I doubt they would convince many others, even after hearing the laborious entire story.
 
In the book The Cathars and Reincarnation (Arthur Guirdham, Quest Books/Theosophical Publishing House 1978)digging for historical records proved to be very helpful. In this case there was nothing to actually prove that the subject had been the person she claimed to be, but the subject did provide many historical details which were subsequently verified. In fact, some of those details were initially contradicted by historians and only later research turned up the fact that the historians were wrong and the regression subject was right. That's pretty good historical validataion.

This supplies very good evidence that the subject was incarnate at the time she claimed and pretty good circumstantial evidence to support her claim to be who she said she had been.
 
Dear Deborah,
Ok, to me your comment clearly describes what one might call a continuously evolving comprehension of where human-kind has been. This is an understanding that can never be static overall nor embraced by a single human mind. It is a kind of degraded sub-set of the Hiranyagarbha which is perhaps defined as the sum total of all minds (contents and capacity-wise), past, present and maybe future as well. Being the one essential and eternal mind it knows all but does not partake of creation. In my view, past life recall taps into this structure when exercised passively but when the soul (extended self) takes an active part, a higher level is reached, perhaps not controlled by the higher self as much as facilitated thereby. This level is creative and does indeed change the world, both the historical record and the collective human comprehension or realisation of “reality”. The key component here is both admitting error (passive relief) and then actually changing the initial negative act into something positive but from inside the ego of the perpetrating consciousness.
Regards


------------------
Robin
 
History is written by the victors if they live long enough. You want an example that demonstrates brilliantly just how self-contradictory, not to mention heaped with layer upon layer of subsequent societal bias, and thus demonstrably full of you-know-what, the record can be? I refer you to the history of Alexander the Great. It is now possible for two historians of equal repute to make equally well-documented arguments that Alexander was a) a raging drunken megalomaniac tyrant and b) a brilliant noble civilizing hero. The academic "party line" on this question has swung drastically within living memory. So what do I rely on for the real picture? What else have I got? Memory! (Several people's, not just mine. That way I can balance my own naturally self-serving bias with others more critical, i.e. present all the versions and let the reader judge.)

That said, or perhaps I should say ranted. I think you can certainly use the historical record to make a convincing argument that you are somehow remembering or accessing knowledge of a previous time, whether you lived then or you're doing remote viewing through time or whatever. (Apparently remote viewing can be done through time as well as space, which could throw a wrench into any and all past life claims, I suppose, if the skeptic believes in remote viewing, that is! I personally think that past life memory and past remote viewing both happen, and that could be an explanation for multiple claimants for the same past lives, simultaneous lives being lived by the same soul, etc. Could be. I absolutely claim no certainty here!)

Anyway, I think the best test satisfies these requirements:

1) The information is truly verifiable, e.g. memories of the appearance of places which still exist and are known not to have changed, events which are agreed on even by opposing sides of a historical debate or are mentioned in so many sources as to be irrefutable, etc.

2) There is no way the claimant could have learned the information before, even by having flipped through a book or flashed on a website -- since the mind is capable of remembering details even seen for a moment; so here, to be absolutely certain, you want verification of details that are only historically available somewhere the claimant has never been able to access.

3) The random chance factor is eliminated, i.e. the memories are correct on more details than could be accounted for by chance.

Even satisfying all these, I myself wouldn't necessarily believe I'd lived a given past life without other evidence such as similarities, connections, and continuities between the current life and the past one -- lots of them. When I say lots, I mean hundreds (including the subtle ones). I wouldn't believe I'd lived a past life without it providing the answer to some burning questions of this life. But this sort of test is what convinces outsiders. For a very well-done job of it in book form regarding a famous past life, read Donald Norsic's To Save Russia. Nor would I disbelieve in a past life if it doesn't satisfy all of these requirements, since in many cases -- such as a life about which no facts are irrefutably known -- that simply isn't going to be possible.

This next idea of mine I wrote about on another thread: a claim of two famous past lives offers a unique opportunity: an examination of the historical record is likely to show up similiarities, connections and continuities between the two lives. The beauty of this is that it is completely independent of the claimant, especially if the historical material was extant before he was born; the only input of the claimant is to say that the two lives were lived by the same soul, which can then be tested for historically, looking for the sort of similarities we know of from the many this-life/past-life comparisons we've all read. Of course to eliminate the possibility of cryptomnesia, it's also required that the claimant not have read enough on the two lives to have spotted similarities before having made the claim, as otherwise that might have inspired it.

The only example I have is my own, re Alexander and Thomas More, and so far I've focused mainly on More's book Utopia, since I know from my this-life experience that writers of imaginative works can unknowingly be inspired by past lives. Well, in Utopia (which was extant, of course, more than 450 years before I was born) More drew from many sources, but there is a strong current of Alexander under the surface. Example: by linguistic clues that More himself comments on (p. 84 in my edition), Utopia seems to be akin to a successful fusion of Greek and Persian culture, with Greek the more recent addition. The only person in history who ever actually attempted to fuse those two cultures was Alexander. Another example: the similarities of the "conqueror" of the island, after whom it is named -- Utopus -- to Alexander are many, including even the way he names it: Utopia from Utopus, Alexandria from Alexandros. Another example: Utopia's military strategies and policies are in many ways identical to Alexander's. Now you could argue that More was a classical scholar and therefore perhaps knew these things from his education and decided to use them. But why did he choose so many? (I've mentioned only some. I don't think I've even got them all, because I don't have enough expertise; for instance, I know that some scholar spotted some implicit references to the Iliad, Alexander's favourite work, in Utopia but I haven't found them yet.) And if More admired Alexander and followed him consciously, why didn't he say so, as he did with numerous other classical figures mentioned?

For me to have claimed the two lives due to having been inspired by these similarities, I would have had to read Utopia before any memories came up, which, as I recall, I didn't, and to have studied Alexander history in some detail, which I also didn't, and to have connected the two, delineated the similarities, and decided that they were enough to make a claim, all subconsciously... but not only that. I would also have had to decide not to pick, as another notable life to add to Thomas More in my quest for bragging rights, one of the classical figures he names in Utopia, one of which in particular seems more directly connected (Plato, author of The Republic). I would have had to recognize subtle similarities to a past life in a piece of literature before I learned what these similarities look like through spotting them in my this-life writing. Now I know the cryptomnesiac mind can do some amazing work, but this seems a stretch even for it.

Is that validation? Well, validation is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. I know that I myself have needed a lot of other evidence as well as this to be even majorly convinced (and I'm not 100% convinced to this day). But I will say, I think historical verification is worth a shot, so long as the history is on firm ground. Last point: the more recent the life is, the easier it is to find its historical traces, as less time has passed to erase them.

Love & peace,
Karen
 
I perused this quickly, so I might be off a little, but my own experiences and later verification related to details did tend to make me believe that my memories are real.
For example: I was in my teens and tormenting my elder brother who seemed to find a girl in every 'port' while he was in the military. (Dallas was big at the time so the sudden appearance of unknown offspring was a joke) One day I suddenly blurted out,
"You better watch it when your German triplets find you. You know, Hilde, Helga, and Helmut." I had no idea at the time that Goebbels first three children were respectively, Hilde, Helga, and Helmut.
Another time I dreamed of a room like a hunting lodge, and a man in a white uniform who wanted me to call him Uncle Willi. (I drew the room and showed it to my friends at work.) Imagine my surprise when about six years later on The History Channel, I saw the exact room which was the main room of Hermann Goerring's hunting lodge named Karinhall which had been completely destroyed at the end of the war. AND Hermann's middle name was Wilhelm, AND he liked to wear a very light blue nearly white uniform.
Yeah, I like verification.
catseye
 
Is it good to investigate...?

Is it good to investigate about the periods of history or the places you feel atracted to because you think is related to a pl? or is it better to just do nothing, for being afraid that what you have investigated influence your thoughts and memories?
 
I guess that depends on each individual person's perspective. Personally, I prefer to explore my memories prior to researching anything -- I feel it's better validation for me if I don't actually know anything -- but my memories can be confirmed by my research.



Ailish
 
I've always been interested in certain eras of history, and I've read and studied them, and so far I haven't had any PL dreams that seem triggered by those interests. While I think it's possible to be drawn to a specific time or region because of a PL, I have my doubts. With news and cable TV available 24/7, there are so many influences in our lives already, let's hope we're not too susceptible or suggestive.

John
 
I agree with both Ailish and John. It's good to let the memories come first, but we shouldn't take it too seriously.

Besides at least for me it's sometimes impossible to NOT start the research after the first flash or memory... : angel

Karoliina
 
Besides at least for me it's sometimes impossible to NOT start the research after the first flash or memory...

:D :laugh: :D No kidding!! Especially if you have a fairly big "lead" to go on -- or understand the trigger. Sometimes it really is difficult to sit back and be patient...I'm with you on that one. ;)


Ailish
 
Owl said:
Have anyone had more memories after doing research?

Yes, lots of them!

In my case, because I was trying to prove I was not the person whom I remembered being, I did a lot of research. It didn't help, but I did do a lot of it.

It's also the best way I know of to determine whether or not your memories have any validity, by asking "Could this have happened in X time and Y place?"

Phoenix
 
I think it's good to investigate because it can trigger the memories you're after. Children's books on the era in question are especially good for this because they have pictures. I was looking at books on the Middle Ages, and in one of them, there was a picture of a modern woman dressed as an early 15th-century noblewoman, and I had that instant feeling of recognition, as if I were looking at a picture of an old friend I hadn't seen in a long time. I did further research and found that I wasn't far off; noblewomen had companions called ladies-in-waiting, and the more I learned, the more certain I was that that was exactly what I had done.

If I hadn't investigated, it would probably have taken longer to find the memories of that life.
 
with my dream I had, it didn't reoccur until I finished reading a book called "Across the Nightengale Floor" which is based in time of feudal Japan. So I believe their is a connection between my dream and Japan - possibly. I am interested in the times of Feudal Japan as well as beginning of the Meiji Era - in particular the Shinsengumi. I have quite a bit of research on the Shinsengumi and studied it for my major essay in Mordern History - I got a bit annoyed with my teacher, she did excatly understand what the Shinsengumi was or what they did
 
Back
Top