The Division Of Consciousness:
The Secret Afterlife of the Human Psyche
By Peter Novak
Hampton Roads Publishing, Inc., 1997
258 pages, $14.95 paperback.

Every so often there comes along a book with a provocative, even brilliant insight. This book is one of them.

Novak bases what he calls his "Division Theory" on what he believes to be an almost universal -- although long-forgotten in many cultures -- tripartite division of human nature into body, soul and spirit, and correlating the latter two terms to Freud's distinction unconscious and the conscious self, as well as Jung's division of the self into masculine (animus) and feminine (anima) principles. Then add to this what he accepts as well-researched scientific data connected with two types of psychological phenomena, seeming past-life (or read that in the plural -- "lives") recall under hypnosis on the one hand, and the future-oriented "near-death experiences" on the other. And so...?

Novak's central thesis is that if these modern psychological insights and data are projected back into ancient but hitherto opposed views of the afterlife, namely "reincarnation" of the soul through a series of lives as taught by most oriental religions vs. "resurrection" of the body as found in the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) tradition, that these opposed views cannot only be better understood but completely reconciled. As Novak sees it, it is only the "soul" or psyche (equated with the Freudian unconscious or the Jungian "anima") that reincarnates -- which explains why, even in oriental religions, seldom does anyone claim to have remembered their past lives. On the other hand, it is the "spirit" (Greek pneuma corresponding to the Hebrew ru'ah -- but also identified by Novak with rationality and full consciousness) that not only returns to God from which it came, but which will be the principle of resurrection and reintegration of all former "souls" or "psyches" into a future state of mutual reconciliation and supreme union with God. Certainly an impressive scenario if there ever was one!

Of course, skeptics are bound to find flaws or voice objections. One, which Novak seems to some degree to have to anticipated, might be that at most this theory would explain these ancient beliefs in terms of being psychological projections of the right-brain vs. left. Instead, Novak uses this morphological distinction to further advance his basic insight, seeing this physiological division as the biological underpinning for the corresponding division between "soul" and "spirit" and moving on from there by reviewing classical views of the afterlife from ancient times, speculating on the nature of the primordial "fall" and sharing his own views of Jesus' own inner reconciliation of psyche and spirit.

Others, (like this reviewer) while finding Novak's collection of anthropological data as to similar beliefs impressive and his psychological insights exhilarating, are apt become much more skeptical when taking even a cursory look at his proposed biblical evidence. Although obviously well-read in the scriptures, Novak's interpretations seem to be ideosyncratic and largely untouched by any really serious contemporary biblical scholarship. Thus, we see him veering from naive literalism (but often completely divorced from context in a way that would even make a fundamentalist wince) to a free-wheeling kind of symbolic interpretation by means of bracketed interpolations that often come close to all but overwhelming the quoted text.

However, Novak's similarly approached interpretations of the Gospel of Thomas and the other Nag Hammadi manuscripts, seem to make considerably more sense, which is hardly surprising, considering that his expressed aim is quite similar to these Gnostic-influenced texts, which was, at that time, to reinterpret Christianity, with the help of Greek philosophy, in terms of a mix of radical middle eastern dualism with various oriental religious ideas. But even regarding western religion, he sometimes falls into sweeping generalizations that, while intriging, are of dubious accuracy. For example, Novak claims that because of the division of the mind, a people or civilization will attribute to divinity characteristics quite opposite of the way they think of themselves. Hence, because of the West's emphasis on the personal self -- which he identifies with the unconscious pysche -- he sees our view of God as "possessing the classic attributes of conscious spirit, but not so much those of the soul" hence "the Great and Terrible God of Israel". One might ask whatever happened to the "hesed Jahweh" of the Old Testament prophets (God's loving tenderness) or Christianity's "God is Love?" Or again, what about Advaita Hinduism's equation of atman (the highest, most permanent self) with Brahman (the most purified concept of ultimate, divine reality)?

My main problem with Novak's theory is, however, not in his claims of biblical evidence, or in his sometimes too broad generalizations, but in trying to make any sense of what appears to be his rather literalistically understood ideas of resurrection, much less, his ideas of reincarnation, in any way that is compatible with the modern scientific theory of evolution. Both these ancient concepts may very well have originated -- as Novak's theory would illustrate -- from the depths of the human mind perplexed by the mystery of death. Or whether it be based on conflicting cosmologies (as I have suggested elsewhere), as far as psychological origins go, I think both our theories are quite compatible. But given these divisions, I do not believe that reincarnation and resurrection, literally understood, can be completely reconciled nor, even if they could, would prove very convincing to the modern more scientifically-oriented mind.

If, for example, we see the human mind and personality as both a function and an expression of our physical existence here and now, then what is there that could be possibly reincarnated that could be called "us" when we came back to life? I suspect that the Buddhists, especially as found in the Theravadin schools, are quite correct on that point -- with "reincarnation" becoming more or less a metaphor for the interconnectedness of life in general and its particular moral consequences.

Likewise, I think that Novak's too ready acceptance of the nephesh (though he never refers to this Hebrew term, although he cites quite a few other Hebrew words) as meaning "soul" in the sense that most uncritical bible-readers would take it, is quite misleading. While no doubt some other primitive soul-beliefs were circulating in the ancient mid-east, contemporary biblical scholarship would take us to a position regarding the meaning of this peculiar Hebrew term that is much closer to the Buddhist starting point than most would realize. It is rather in the solution -- in terms of offering a hope for the future -- that the Christian and the Buddhist might differ most - but even here, with "Nirvana" being left deliberately undefined, who's to say?.

On the other hand, even if we try to define it, is resurrection belief any more comprehensible today? Literally, it would seems not, other than through the kind of rather dubious cybernetic reductionism found in Tipler's 1995 book. So is Novak's version any more satisfying? If anything, despite his attempt to interpret typical apocalyptic imagery (which like popular writers like Hal Lindsay he fails to distinguish from more classical biblical prophecy) in very eloquently expressed psychological terms, Novak's often literalistic starting points for his free-wheeling reinterpretations often end up leading him into what seem like even less believable scenarios. For example, his attempt to explain as to how the "souls" of multiple past reincarnations could be all resurrected into a single body runs into the same sort of difficulties as faced by Aquinas and other medieval theologians when faced with the old conundrum about whose body is whose when cannibals rise with all the rest on the judgement day! Would it not simply be easier, and certainly more compatible with -- though admittedly far beyond -- the tenets of biological evolution, to suggest, with St. Paul, that what dies as a physical body somehow rises as a "spiritual" one?

Instead, where I think that Novak's thesis can make its strongest contribution is his psycho- theological analysis of the radical division between psyche and spirit that exists within us all, and the promise of its healing, that will prove to be the greatest value of Novak's book. Indeed, in his insistence that our own personal identity is bound up, often very egotistically, with our psyche and all its largely unconscious drives (even to be identified with the biblical "Satan" as Novak adds in an appendix) and in his recognition that the "spirit", no matter how much it aspires to reach higher levels of consciousness, is ultimately a life-force originating from and ultimately returning to God, that Novak may have given Christian theologians a new and powerful insight into both the mystery of death and what "resurrection" might in fact be. For if the resurrectional power of Christ be anything of vital interest to each of us as an entirely unique and unrepeatable human being, would it not be that the psyche that has taken form during our own physical life, however briefly it may have been lived, or however flawed as it may have been, will nevertheless be raised up again or in some way "reincorporated" into full or even fuller consciousness shared with all the other "redeemed" in the total consciousness of God?

Return to Index of Book Reviews

File:Novak.htm 3/21/98