The Seat of the Soul [Audiobook, Unabridged] [Audio CD]

Zukav speaks as one "who knows" without demonstrating that he possibly could know. The book discusses authoritatively such issues as the nature of the soul, reincarnation, karma, the souls of animals versus those of humans, higher order guides and teachers, angels, and numerous other mystical concepts with ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to where his thoughts and ideas come from. He simply states them as fact, and assumes we will all just fall in behind him like sheep. His model is little more than a creative mish-mash of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Platonic thought, psychic experience and science, all blended in a creative, but HIGHLY unsubstantiated paradigm. He leans WAY too heavily on the inkling of quantum physics he gained while writing "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" and has made an abomination of some of those concepts. For instance, he speaks of the human soul as literally being composed of light. Not metaphorically, but literally. But not the kind of light that science knows, for that would run him up against problems when someone tries to measure the wavelength of the soul. No, his light is a DIFFERENT kind of light. Are there relationships to quantum physics that could be drawn upon to understand the human condition and psyche? Absolutely. Did he address any of the legitimate ones? Not one.

His ignorance and arrogance shines brilliantly throughout the book. For instance, in the chapter on reverence he expresses shock that mankind would do "one thing that would risk the balance of the Earth's ecosystem." If he was really a student of evolution and dynamical systems, he would know full well that ecosystems are CONSTANTLY moved out of balance, and that is exactly the fuel that drives the evolution that his theory depends upon! No one, not dolphins or squirrels or trees or people or even Mr. Zukav can prevent having an "impact on the balance of the ecosystem."

There are myriads of inconsistencies in his paradigm that leaves the reader confused as to what he's really trying to say. For instance, he speaks a good deal early on in the book of the impersonal universe that acts without judgment, being essentially the medium that allows life to just unfold (not unlike the Tao). Later, he speaks of a Universe that has been divinely planned and executed to make sure that it is the perfect opportunity for each soul to achieve exactly the karmic balance it seeks. Or he says, "not one action of the Universe is without compassion." These suggestions are anything BUT the actions of an impersonal universe. So which is it? Are we simply evolving according to principles that govern the system, or are we a part of grand, externally generated blue-print? He also state's that "Angels cannot be understood in human terms," and then he spends several paragraphs explaining the nature of angels...in human terms! The inconsistency alone grates on me, but the audacity of the man to speak so authoritatively on the nature of Angels or anything else that "cannot be understood in human terms" is absurd.

Space does not allow for a point by point criticism of this book, and you don't want to read it anyway. Suffice it to say that anyone that purports to "know" anything had better be able to back it up with either direct experience, or at least a coherent synthesis of the accepted works of others. Zukav has done neither. He has launched himself on a creative flight of fancy and tried to pass it off as wisdom regarding the manner in which the soul exists. It is not wisdom. It is not philosophy. It is not religion, and it is not science. It is nothing more than Mr. Zukav's ideas, written in a creative way that demonstrates his abilities in the English language far more than any gifts related to spirituality. (Had he only stated that "these are my ideas, see if you like 'em," then I could have been much more forgiving. But he didn't. He said, "This is how it is.")

Zukav apparently has not learned the age old imperative that, "the more I learn, the less I find I know." He thinks he knows it all, and in so thinking, proves to me that he "knows" nothing. For those who read the book and loved it, my apologies. For those who have not yet read it, be cautious.

The "Seat of the Soul" is a lot like its predecessor. It takes complex ideas, and presents them in a way we can all understand. The crux of Zukav's spiritual message is if you want to change your life, change your mind. Tune into channel WGOD, so to speak.

"Seat" is a simple wisdom book. It is general, and can be applied to whatever particular spiritual tradition you use, be it Zen, Christianity or Wicca. It does not go into classifications of Divas and Angels and rituals Etc., like so many New Age books do. Its value is its simple, straightforward presentation of the ideas. This directness is a hallmark of good writing.

I think that many of the critics here are confused by the style. Since it is so direct, it comes across as didactic to some. It seems that Zukav rewrote the piece to death, since clear communication was his goal. My evidence: so many direct verbs, and barely a passive verb in sight. In fact, the text is as terse and to the point as a business communication is supposed to be. I suggest some of the critics who were put off by the author's "absolutism" reread the book with this in mind, since I find the ideas open-ended. Having examined my life through Zukav's prism, and applied his ideas to better myself, I find his philosophy quite sound. You do get what you expect. Amazing.

I do have problems, however, with the lack of sources. Some of the ideas clearly came from the Vedic scripture, some from Taoist teachings, others from Judeo-Christian-Islamic sources, and some from Jung. It would do most readers a world of good to see that Zukav, indeed the entire New Age movement, is merely translating ancient religions' mystical understandings into an easily accessible form. I am also not 100% sold on reincarnation, but am willing to keep an open mind.

These failings aside, this is a wonderful book, loaded with insight. It has been a pleasure to have made its acquaintance.