Thursday, 31 July 2014

(spirit) rescue



In the interests of clarity, for the context I am using this term, I should probably refer to ‘spirit rescue’, rather than just ‘rescue’. Having acknowledged that, I will - for convenience - continue with the shorthand version (i.e. - ‘rescue’).
Rescue is the art/skill of guiding the soul of an entity (not necessarily human) whose physical body has died, from the etheric/lower astral realms to the astral or higher frequency realms that souls normally go to between incarnations, or after they have finished incarnating to this world. Entities that fail to make this transition properly are referred to as ‘earthbound’. (Entities without a physical body are referred to as ‘discarnate‘. This can be determined by the lack of a ‘Silver Cord’ between the nonphysical body(ies) and the physical body, for those who are psychic enough.)
Most entities make this transition without any problems (to the extent that some mediums, such as Charmaine Wilson, claim there is no such thing as an earthbound entity - to which I have to advise of a professional disagreement :)- but I still respect and highly recommend Ms Wilson), or can be adequately helped by those other discarnate entities who undertake this work, in roles which are akin to that of midwives here on the physical level of reality. A few, however, get stuck for a wide range of reasons and can be helped by techniques such as those I and others have posted about.
This is a major them on my Musings of Gnwmythr blog, and other blogs. Some additional resources which may be of interest are:

As of the time this definition was written, I’ve touched on this idea in the following posts:
     Post No. 455.  Another unco-op;
     Post No. 378.  Checking; 
     Post No. 254. Rescuing Uncooperatives;
     Post No. 092. Shades of Exorcism;
     Post No. 040. Mediumship - Part Two;
     Post No. 002. Workshop on Past Lives - Part 1: working with karma as an energy

A couple of decades ago, while working on a book on rescue which I never finished, I did a few - lighthearted - sketches to help illustrate what I was writing about. The following sketches show - and I was using animals in an anthropomorphic way as a cartoon device - (1) the unusual behaviour which possession can lead to (i.e., the dog behaving as a cat), (2) "physical" rescue, where a medium communicates with a cat spirit in a dog body, shows that it is in a dog body and thus something has happened, and gets the cat spirit to move on, and (3) rescue of a spirit from a place through a combination of physical communication directing attention to the astral equivalent of something the earthbound entity might expect in the physical (incidentally, I had intended to redraw these to be a bit more distinct, but as I haven't had time to do so over the last few decades, I've decided to post them now, as they are  with a hope they may be of some use or lead to someone doing something better):






adage

I’m going to handball this one straight to the online Oxford Dictionary: see http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/adage?q=adage


 

Saturday, 19 July 2014

clairaudience



Clairaudience literally means ‘clear hearing’ (see here, here and here for more on this). In the context I and others have used it, it means non-physical perception that is interpreted as hearing a sound – whether the sound is of people talking (i.e., ‘hearing voices’ – see here and here), sounds (such as spirit rapping, associated with the Fox Sisters, but which I once posted about specifically here), synaesthetic perceptions of reality (e.g., sensing a musical tone in association with a colour, which I had to a minor degree when I was young) or some other sound that has no physical cause (not just ‘no perceived physical cause’, but no actual physical cause).
My main psychic perception is clairaudience, rather than clairvoyance – although I can get confused between my clairaudience and my clairsentience or my intuition, partly because of a lack of attention to mechanism (I check the energy, and if it is BPLF, then I don’t really care whether it is clairaudience,  clairsentience or intuition, just what the message is) and partly because my psychic sensing is mostly subjective, rather than objective.
Psychic perception of a sound as if it was outside the head is termed ‘objective’, and when the sound is inside the head it is termed ‘subjective’. There was a ‘guide’ I read that objective clairaudience could be indicative of mental illness. This is a dangerous guide, as mental illness could be indicated by a wide range of things - mental health professionals are the people to consult on that, not simplistic guides! Furthermore, some perfectly sane people could have objective clairaudience – as acknowledged in some of the links I gave at the start of this definition. I have experienced objective clairaudience once, someone with positive energy light-heartedly calling my name at a time when I was depressed.
If you want some sort of guide, a better one I have read of is this: is the person in control of the clairaudience and the effect it is having on them, or is the clairaudience having an out of control effect? As you contemplate this, be aware that, according to this site, 4 to 10% of people ‘hear voices’ in some way, and this Psychology Today article says that one in three voice hearers need help, but others may find their voices helpful. (See here, also, for a suggestion for health professionals on this.)

As of the time this definition was written, I’ve touched on this idea in the following posts:
 

Thursday, 10 July 2014

purpose



There is a question that, to my mind, flows fairly naturally from the basic determination that more than just the physical exists, that there is also a non-physical. That question is: why?
This is, to some extent, the creation myth.
Now, the way I work out an answer to that is based on the evidence I have of how things are in the non-physical, and one of the key features there is that, in the non-physical, what we perceive as ‘distance’ in the physical is replaced by closeness / harmony of basic being (or, if you prefer, similarity of fundamental frequency), which means it is harder to be in the presence of disharmony when you are in the nonphysical. That means being loving and nice is easier … but being challenged on the depth and breadth of your love may be harder to experience.
In the physical, on the other hand, you can find yourself in the presence of people who are different, or not in harmony with you, and thus learning to spiritually love them is harder even though there is not necessarily anything ‘wrong’ with them - and, as a result, the growth you make is better.
This means that the physical came into being - from a spiritual perspective - to ensure that we have a chance to come into contact with those parts of the Universe’s variety that we may not otherwise even know existed - and, ideally, learn to get along constructively with those who are different. That gives the Universe a chance to mix and draw on the best of all combinations of skills - the Universe itself seeks diversity, as that has evolutionary advantages. If multiple solutions to ‘a problem’ or ‘a (valid) need’ can be tried at the same time in different ‘places’, then the Universe won’t be trapped in a dead end. Life will go on, and will continue to grow and evolve because all the skills and perspectives that are available can be combined in the best possible way by people meeting those who are dissimilar, and learning to get along and then work together.
Some people talk about the essential unity of all life, and the Oneness of all things: any such talk that does not consider the issue of disharmony and difference is, in my opinion, meaningless, naïve and superficial.
Similarly, views that the purpose of the physical is to show beauty and variety are, despite the undoubted existence of said beauty and variety, flawed as they do not consider the rest of Reality (the ‘Greater Reality’, as Lobsang Rampa terms it; see also here). Mind you, being in contact with people and places that are not in harmony with oneself, as can happen in the physical, improves one’s ability to understand just how much variety there truly is in the Universe - physical and non-physical.
Those views that state the physical exists for the purpose of learning and growth, or learning to love, are also inadequate, in my view, as learning and growth can also occur in the astral. Learning to love can also occur in the various nonphysical levels of existence, albeit without the challenge of contact with disharmony. On that, I note the following comments, attributed the Nine’s spokesperson, ‘Tom’, from Stuart Holroyd’s brilliant book "Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth":

''If they treat all as they would desire to be treated, if they walk in dignity and neither attempt to remove from another nor permit to be removed from themselves their dignity, and if they have love for their fellow men and for all that they come in touch with, this in turn sends love to us.’

and

‘A unified infinite intelligence supported by pure love and which grows with pure love.’

However, cranky old me has a few problems with how the issue of (spiritual) love is viewed by many in this level of existence - largely inappropriate responses, but also the issues of becoming addicted to ‘warm fuzzies’, failing to take account of the fact that we train others how to treat us by our responses, and forgiveness vs. justice. Some of my concerns are addressed by the references to dignity in Tom’s comments.
Nevertheless, all the preceding, I guess, sort of explains the ‘spiritual need’ for physical reality to exist - to my satisfaction, at any rate :) Let’s have a quick look at some other creation myths. I’ll begin with Wiccan.
When I experienced my Wiccan training, I was taught that the Goddess initially existed as chaos until, lonely, she split off a part of herself, which became material existence. Missing that part of herself, she then pursued it by sending sparks of herself – all the souls that inhabit this world – into the physical (which is termed ‘devolution’), each tasked with the quest to return back to its source – the Goddess.
It’s a creation myth that encompasses the ‘Big Bang’ (well, as I was taught it, at any rate), and the idea that we came into physical existence for a purpose (effectively, as expressions of the Goddess’ desire for the God – the desire to be physical and have incarnate experience), after which we return to a state of union with our source.
I can see parallels between this and other belief systems – yogis and yoginis talk of achieving Union with Deity, and the very controversial Castenada claims shamanism is about delivering oneself and all that one has experienced to be swallowed by ‘the Eagle’ upon one’s death – sharing one’s life experience with the Source, in a sense.
Not much in the way of sitting around on clouds playing harps there …
The Wiccan creation myth also introduces the idea of cycles – devolution into physical existence, then evolution back to the Goddess – a cycle which is replicated on a smaller scale through reincarnation of each soul. I’ll have more to write about the idea of cycles, particularly the ‘Yugas’, later. I tend to view this as a view on the emotional aspects of why Reality exists.
The old northern European creation myth, on the other hand, gets more into what I would consider the mechanics of how reality came into existence (although I can see some similarities with the Wiccan view, in terms of polarities).
In the old northern European creation myth, initially there was Ginnungagap, a vast nothingness across which ice from the world of Niflheimr and fiery sparks from Muspellheimr met, and started the creation process, which went through a sequence involving a giant, Ymir (that link is well worth clicking on, including for the review of the sources of the myth as I have included it, and possible connections elsewhere), who was nurtured by milk from the primaeval cow Auðumbla, then slain and his body used by the Gods Odin, Vili, and Vé to create the Earth.
The key for me in this myth is the issue of dynamism - the tension between fire and ice, akin to the dynamic balance between yin and yang as portrayed in the Taijitu, is what creates, drives and renews the Universe.
So … there are other, equally valid views on the purpose of existence: read them, think about it all, and then make up your own mind :)

As of the time this definition was written, I’ve touched on this idea in the following posts: