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.
What are souls?
One point of criticism is that everyone speaks about souls and even soul fractions and yet no one seems to be able to define them.
If there is no self that survives the death of the body, there is no reincarnation and past-life regression is nonsense. The only valid form of regression is 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 regression under the hypothesis or theory of reincarnation, it is obvious that we deal 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. It is of little or no value to be concerned with that in the practical work with regression. For practical purposes we may simply regard the soul to be all of that together.