Claire Broad, Psychic Mediumship and Science |427|

I used to go to some of the Spiritualist churches in my area (in the US) and at one church there was a woman who had been attending services for many years and in all that time a spirit never came through for her. That was very unusual. Most people who attended services regularly would get several readings per year during the mediumship demonstrations given each week during the Sunday service.

I had taken classes in mediumship and had some amazing experiences but that church went through some problems and I never found a class I felt comfortable in again. Once I was attending a class in another church which was open to congregation members so the students could practice giving them readings. While I was sitting there I thought, "I don't like to get readings (because I don't like personal information to be discussed in public) so I shut down and that makes it hard for spirits to come through me when I give readings." Just then the teacher for the class asked me what message I had received - because she could tell a spirit was communicating to me. The guides of the class were trying to give me some advice and I had thought it was my own thinking.

One of the things I learned as a student was that you can often get proof of survival without a very strong connection. Mediumship is kind of like playing a musical instrument. Most people can pick out a tune on a piano but only a few can perform professionally. So a beginning student can often get an identification of a spirit (their appearance, what they did in life, how they died, their interactions with the sitter) with a few mental images, and provide evidence of survival even if they can't give a detailed message. I didn't take classes for much more than a year (not long enough to get very good) but during that time one of the greatest pleasures was to give a non-student visiting the class a reading and seeing how the evidence of survival affected them.

So my answer to David's question would be that if you have unfinished business you need to settle with a spirit, the medium needs a good connection to receive a detailed message, But evidence of survival can come through even if the connection is not that great. A few mental images can provide a unique identification of a spirit, but that is a long way from bringing through a detailed message.
Thank you Jim. I agree with all you have written. It was fascinating reading about your learning, thank you for sharing. It’s a shame you couldn’t find an environment to continue your development because it seems that you were coming along nicely. I know how it goes though. A group must be harmonious if spirit communication is going to be successful, so finding the right environment is absolutely key.
 
Ghost in the Machine

I have been contemplating this of recent, the difference between an epistemological 'proof' (critical path of hypothesis to sound inference) - and those inferences which are drawn inside the realms of impulse and intuition (see below) - and why this putative realm would exhibit a prejudice of sorts, towards different approaches to inference and fact.

If I am to prove that methylfolate for instance, is a better supplement than folic acid for those who are MTHFR (and help alleviate the entailed lifelong suffering and loss in 8% of the population) - I can accomplish this by walking the path of epistemology. I set up a series of 8 experiments/tests in incremental critical path sequence of the questions being asked. And arrive at the answer: Folate uptake is 6 times more effective in the MTHFR gene individual with methylfolate, than with folic acid.

In this pathway, I am operating on the left-hand side of this chart below, inside the inference realm of deduction. A legitimate path of human activity. Our prerogative here. I am free then to dictate to the world - the 'truth of methylfolate'. I am in essence mandating a truth for all around me.

But if one is to attempt this same epistemological approach inside matters of metaphysical selection (personal subjective journey of choice/becoming), and regard such an endeavor as constituting only that same impartial and innocent pathway of reason/logic/testing only - not fully grasping that the technique also carries with it a destination in conclusion which I am now dictating to the world around me - then I may become perplexed as to why the other side would 'screw' with such a set of 'innocent' actions. We are only seeking truth after all, why would 'they' not want the truth to be known?

There is a prejudice against applying the tools of the left hand side of this chart, to matters sought on the right hand side of this chart. Because to do so, would dictate the standards and conclusions of reason and inference contained therein - in other words, my activity would then become the religious activity in red.

But the truth itself may indeed be: I am not allowed to dictate a metaphysical selection to those around me (even though I may not perceive that that is what I am doing), nor derive an answer which removes this right from the individual with whom I am engaging - their right to become. A spiritual Bill of Rights if you will. It is not that 'those on the other side' are prohibited from doing certain things per se (per hoc aditum), rather that they hold this truth paramount as an ethic. With such a level of commitment, that we here perceive it as even somewhat Draconian in its enforcement.

Epistemology is a method of dictating, whether we perceive it as such or not. Spirit is a method of becoming. The latter being of far greater importance.

My journey has entailed a walk from the left-hand side of this chart and into the right-hand side.

???

The Forms of Inference.png
 
Last edited:
Claire,

Can I ask a couple more questions?

1) Did you ever try Julie Beischel's triple blind test? It seemed to me that that test was so strict that it might exclude a lot of genuine mediums.

2) Where do you think an animal's consciousness goes when it dies? Do very simple creatures - worms, insects, single celled creatures also have a consciousness that goes somewhere?

David
 
Claire,

Can I ask a couple more questions?

1) Did you ever try Julie Beischel's triple blind test? It seemed to me that that test was so strict that it might exclude a lot of genuine mediums.

2) Where do you think an animal's consciousness goes when it dies? Do very simple creatures - worms, insects, single celled creatures also have a consciousness that goes somewhere?

David
To add to this, can animals we would consider lower than us from a consciousness perspective, such as a dog or cat, incarnate as humans in a future life?
 
I have come to think that the word energy is used in a different sense from the way physics uses it. If it isn't measurable in Jules, it isn't physics energy! However, science chose to give the word a special meaning.

One example I like. Imagine too sisters at a running track. Jane is slim and racing round the track as fast as she can go, while Janet is plump, and sitting at the side watch and eating an ice cream.

Which has more energy? Common sense says Jane, but physics would answer Janet because if you put them each in a calorimeter and burned then to ash, Janet would release more Joules of energy than Jane (please don't try that experiment at home).

This isn't a puzzle, it is just that the normal human definition of the word energy is different from the technical definition. The normal human definition is possibly close to the psychic meaning of energy, but maybe not identical either.

This confusion seems to extend to a variety of other words - e.g. vibration/frequency - should be measurable in Hertz if it means the same as science means.

(This is one of my hobby horses!)

David
Yep, that's right.
 
I’m going to read this book if I can find it. It sounds like it echoes what my own spirit teachers are saying - thank you
Hi Claire

Its on Kindle for $1.53 [probably AUD on my iPhone]. White has a bunch of books on Kindle. I also noticed that Frank DeMarco came up - another intriguing writer of the same ilk - only Rita rather than Betty.

Also you might find booko.com.au handy to search for books at best price. Comes as an app for your phone as well -BookoBuddy, Brilliant resource.
 
Interestingly I find when people come to see me without a real need, the sittings are weak or don’t work. It’s when people have true emotional need that the contact is strong. This echoes your idea about spirit reaching out only when there’s a need. Of course sometimes it’s the spirit person who has the need and not the earthly family members. That can happen too.
Hi Claire

This is an intriguing thing. It suggests there is some kind of active governance of who gets to have what communicated to them. What are you thoughts?

One of the agents I spoke with for a time was quite firm that he was not there to tell us stuff, but to help us how to learn. He flat out refused tom answer some questions, but came back with real head benders in response to others.

In the Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts it seems clear that people who have no 'real need', but who want the status of talking to dead folk end up being prey to liars if they use less reputable mediums.
 
I think it is possible for mediums to provide evidence for reincarnation, if the spirits are willing to cooperate. Whether people will be convinced depends on the person reviewing the evidence as it does for any kind of evidence. All the controversies in the history of science show that the best interpretation of the evidence is an opinion.

But if a medium can bring through a spirit and provide verifiable information, they can also bring through information a spirit provides about its past lives that can be verified but which the medium would have no way of knowing.
 
The issue about Eastern spirituality and Spiritualist spirituality being two different types of spirituality seems to make sense if you consider the practices - mediumship vs meditation, but if you look at the actual beliefs of the two spiritualities in detail, the dichotomy does not really hold up.

You can't generalize about the beliefs of either type of spirituality. You can find oneness in Spiritualist teachings and no mention of oneness in some forms of Buddhism. Eastern religions recognize the afterlife and reincarnation it is Westerners who have tried to strip Eastern philosophies of these concepts.

And the belief that consciousness is an illusion is not unique to materialists. It exists in a form in Buddhism too.

The way I make sense of all this is that understanding the afterlife and the related ideas of oneness, non-duality and not-self are two aspects of reality and some people are here to explore one or the other or both, or neither.

When materialists say consciousness is an illusion, I think they mean materialism can't explain subjective experiences through materialist scientific principles - so they avoid the issue by claiming it is an illusion. Which seems to me to be wrong, you have to be conscious to be fooled by an illusion. And the question of whether consciousness is an illusion or not does not really help settle whether it is produced by the brain or is non physical. Consciousness, if it was an illusion like materialists believe, it could be produced by something non-physical.

But the Buddha thought consciousness was like a magician's trick.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html
"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?​
Consciousness exists, but if you look within and try to find a thing that is conscious, you can't find anything.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2019/09/coming-and-going.html
When you are [immersed in] trying to solve a problem, figuring something out, it can feel like you are in control of your mind. You are using it intentionally.​
But when you observe yourself trying to solve a problem, you see that your intentions are no different from any other thought, emotion, impulse,..​
...​
[Intentions like thoughts and emotions] arise from the unconscious unasked for, uninvited, they aren't yours. They exist for a time and fade away. They have no substantial existence. They aren't real, they aren't reality. They are illusions.​
The feeling of control over your mind is an illusion. There is thinking but no thinker.​
...​
And you can see how the mind creates this illusion, alternating at will between immersion and observation you can create and evaporate the self as you choose.​
The Buddha did not teach anything about non-duality:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html
Dhamma and Non-duality​
by​
Bhikkhu Bodhi​
The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses.​


A spirit communicating through the medium Leslie Flint explained oneness:

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html
The spirit of Charles Marshall communicating through direct voice medium Leslie Flint said:​
It is the development and it is the tremendous realisation that one must have eventually of how we are all linked and bound together and how actually the very fundamental thing that flows through us all, is the very essence which is of God. And so we gradually evolve more and more to God or become like him.​
I do not refer to shape or form, I refer now to the infinite spirit which is the very life blood you might say of all humanity; where we lose in each other ourselves and discover that we are all in a oneness and in accord. And when we have this oneness and accord we reach a stage of spiritual development where we can be considered to be living in a form if you like of paradise because we are conscious of everything around and about us as being not only "us" but "all".​
 
Last edited:
I think it is possible for mediums to provide evidence for reincarnation, if the spirits are willing to cooperate. Whether people will be convinced depends on the person reviewing the evidence as it does for any kind of evidence. All the controversies in the history of science show that the best interpretation of the evidence is an opinion.

But if a medium can bring through a spirit and provide verifiable information, they can also bring through information a spirit provides about its past lives that can be verified but which the medium would have no way of knowing.
The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts deals with precisely this point - to show how spirits can lie. While it may be possible for spirits to provide evidence of reincarnation, what we have to ask is what their motive would be. What we might call 'lower level' spirits may not have access to knowledge or awareness sufficient to make the case - since it would have to be stuff they were made aware of, rather than via experience.

Higher level spirits may assert reincarnation is real - but proof would be a different matter. How would that work?

Jim, you suggest that "if the spirits are willing to cooperate" evidence could be provided. But let's consider that there has been a lot of spirit contact for centuries and no evidence has been made popularly available. So 2 things. Any evidence provided is kept private (as I dare say most spirit contact is - I have let less than 5% of mine out and have no plans to change that) - or there is really no motive to provide 'proof'.

My experience with contacts and researching the field is that offers of 'proof' and concrete information that is public tends to be fraudulent. You may think it is perfectly reasonable that spirits provide 'proof' of evidence of something, and on the basis of that 'proof' you change your thinking/behaviour. That's not how things work for most of us. We have to put in effort.

The inner plane teacher I had dealings with was clear on this - he was not there to tell us stuff, but to teach us how to think. When he told us anything we had to struggle to use that information. I still go back to transcripts from the late 70s, early 80s to revisit radical ideas that still resonate and stimulate.

Spirit doesn't work on our logic.
 
This transcript (below) is from a session with the medium Leslie Flint in which a spirit provides information about reincarnation. Flint was a direct voice medium, the spirits spoke audibly in his presence. In my opinion Flint's sessions are the most reliable source of information about the afterlife.

The home page of the website is here:
https://www.leslieflint.com

Here is a link to the transcript.
https://www.leslieflint.com/d-conacher-aug-4th-1965


Douglas:
I think the most important thing to realise in regard to reincarnation is the fact that it is something which isn't necessarily essential, in every instance. In other words, not everyone incarnates again, although many, many do - in fact, the vast majority.

But of course, we have to go back centuries upon centuries of time and realise that there are many, many souls who have incarnated on several occasions and now do not feel the need to incarnate again. But, uh, of course one has to accept the fact that in one life on Earth one can only hope to, in a sense, skim the surface of experience, and it's often necessary to re-enter the Earth-world to live a new life; in a new guise, in a new body, as a new being. Indeed sometimes of the opposite sex. Sometimes it's essential to experience certain happenings which can only be experienced, uh, under certain conditions, which previously were quite different when you were on Earth before.

Then again I think one should remember that there are individuals who choose to return to do a special work. Most of the great teachers and prophets of old, were very old souls who had chosen to return to do a certain work in a certain age, and set an example and show the path for others who might follow.
...
There are bound to be people with differing views and different strata of experience. And, of course, there are many people to whom reincarnation is repugnant and who, possibly in many instances, will not have the need to incarnate, will not want to reincarnate.

You see, the point is, that there are so many souls on Earth who have, uh, experienced a great deal in previous lives - of which they of course remember little or nothing at all, more likely than not, nothing at all - and in consequence they do not have the time in their incarnation, to have experience of these things.

But...and in a way it's a good thing. I mean, people always say, 'if one could remember this or that, then it would be very good evidence or proof of it...and since we don't remember, how do we know?' But the point is this, that in many instances, it would be a bad thing to have recognition or remembrance of previous lives, because that would be a barrier rather than a help.

For instance, if you remembered certain aspects of life that were, in your own instance or own case, bad - from the point of view of the fact that you did this or that, that you should not have done, which was detrimental to your spiritual advancement...if you remembered this too vividly and knew about it too much, you would then, in the next incarnation, be on your guard and you would be artificially, you might say, avoiding things.

In other words, when a thing happens, it must happen from within oneself. If you want to do good or if you want to live a life that is good or do certain things that are wise, then these things will spring from within oneself and come naturally.

But if you do things because you think you should do them, it's the right thing to and you do them against your will, or if you do something because you think it's essential that you do it, because in a previous incarnation you neglected that aspect of yourself...in other words, if you do something through a kind of fear, then that's not good in itself.

You see, it must spring naturally from one's innermost soul that you want to do something...

People say...so many people say, 'oh well if I knew where I went wrong last time, I could avoid it.' Well, the point is, that if you knew where you went wrong or you knew what your failings were, and in this incarnation you were on your guard and you were saying to yourself, 'now I mustn't do this' or 'I mustn't do that. This is where I went wrong last time', you would probably, almost certainly, be doing something, in a sense, through fear. You wouldn't be doing it naturally, it wouldn't...

...be springing from your innermost soul when you wanted to do something. You see, until man learns to live according to his inner conscience and his inner realisation of things that are wise and good, until man desires to do good for good's sake and not through a kind of fear...that is the trouble of course for the majority of religions.

So much goodness comes, not through the sake of goodness or wanting particularly to be good, but but through the fear of doing otherwise, in case they are...in case one is punished, you see?

That is one of the big faults with, uh, orthodox religion.

Eira:
Yes. Have you found...learnt your, um, incarnations darling?

Oh yes I...

Eira:
When did you know about them?

Douglas:
I've known about them for some little time...

Eira:
Yes.

Douglas:
...but I'm getting to know a little more of the detail. But the point is, that there are some incarnations of which one has little knowledge or realisation, because in themselves they played a very unimportant part.

You see, there are lives in which - I suppose the formative lives or the formative experiences of Earth - which were so basic, which were so...in any case, one has to go back to the time and the way of life of the times and also to realise that one was the product of an age to some extent.

You see, there again, I think it's important to realise that...that people are the product of an age. And what is generally accepted as the thing to do or the outlook of life that one may have in that age, may not necessarily fit in and could not fit in with another age.

You see, there is so much that one has to take into consideration. For instance, a person may not be, according to the age in which they live, as bad a person as perhaps we would think in retrospect. Because they are the product of an age that may have been, for instance, very cruel - and cruelty was an accepted thing.

I mean, this may sound like an excuse, but the point is, that there are things that do not happen in your life today, which were commonplace a hundred years ago.

For instance, you take...today you don't hang children, but a hundred years ago it wasn't an unknown thing for children who stole a loaf of bread to be hanged, you see.

The point is, that we are the product of our age and our time and the thinking. You see, the whole point is, the thought-force of an age is so powerful...

...that it affects the whole of life, it affects the whole of humanity and until man progresses en masse...you see, we talk about the individual progress of man which is, of course, necessary and vital and of course it must be the individual progress of man that will formulate the whole thinking of the whole human race en mass.

But the point is, that an age is predominantly as it thinks, and the peoples of that age are the product of the minds of a previous generation...

...that have been the formation of their own and present. So we are all, in a sense, in an age of change or time of change and in evolution.

And an age...an individual life in a certain age, is essential and necessary and we learn, to a certain extent, and we make terrible mistakes and we have failure.

But the point is, that it is often necessary for the human being to incarnate; in a new incarnation, in a new life, in a new age - to contribute something which is very necessary, not only to himself (or evolve or develop in himself) but to contribute to the age in which he is reborn.

There are great instances of course of this, of great souls who, in a way, stand head and shoulders above the peoples of their time. They are great leaders or great teachers or great prophets or great seers or...in some field or other. Maybe it is in art for instance or music.

All these great souls on which, often, the world looks upon as a genius. Or, for instance, if not that, in some instances, they are looked upon as people out of time, people that perhaps are not always accepted in their age, people who do not seem to fit in.

These are old souls who have chosen to return, or perhaps, in some instances, have been sent back. But no one really enters into the world unwillingly. I don't think one can say that anyone is forced back. The point is, that the majority of people desire to enter into the world again. They feel the need for experiences or perhaps they feel the need to do a specific work or job.

Everything is law and order, everything is logical. The extraordinary is that people always say, for instance, about Spiritualism or communication or reincarnation or whatever it may be, to do with the psychic or the spiritual, that it's not logical. Actually, the most logical thing of all is this spiritual realisation. People cling to the material and think that is the logical, but it isn't, it's the most illogical.
 
Last edited:
The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts deals with precisely this point - to show how spirits can lie. While it may be possible for spirits to provide evidence of reincarnation, what we have to ask is what their motive would be. What we might call 'lower level' spirits may not have access to knowledge or awareness sufficient to make the case - since it would have to be stuff they were made aware of, rather than via experience.

Higher level spirits may assert reincarnation is real - but proof would be a different matter. How would that work?

Jim, you suggest that "if the spirits are willing to cooperate" evidence could be provided. But let's consider that there has been a lot of spirit contact for centuries and no evidence has been made popularly available. So 2 things. Any evidence provided is kept private (as I dare say most spirit contact is - I have let less than 5% of mine out and have no plans to change that) - or there is really no motive to provide 'proof'.

My experience with contacts and researching the field is that offers of 'proof' and concrete information that is public tends to be fraudulent. You may think it is perfectly reasonable that spirits provide 'proof' of evidence of something, and on the basis of that 'proof' you change your thinking/behaviour. That's not how things work for most of us. We have to put in effort.

The inner plane teacher I had dealings with was clear on this - he was not there to tell us stuff, but to teach us how to think. When he told us anything we had to struggle to use that information. I still go back to transcripts from the late 70s, early 80s to revisit radical ideas that still resonate and stimulate.

Spirit doesn't work on our logic.
I was responding to something I heard in the podcast which was that someone said Spiritualists don't talk about reincarnation because mediumship can't prove it. I was trying to point out that there must be another reason because mediumship could prove it. If a spirit can provide evidence about their own life that can be verified, they could, if they wanted to, provide evidence about a past life that could be verified. And I explained what I meant by proof.
 
Last edited:
I’ve often thought about this too. Love the explanation
BTW, Superqualia was quoting me!

I think it might help if ψ-folk generally just prefixed these ambiguous words with "psychic-". I know that is a bit clumsy, but science grabbed those words, and they are certainly not going to shift!

The problem is that psychic claims of almost any variety are also essentially claims about science. Because of the connection between the two subjects, scientists are tempted to speak about psychic effects while knowing nothing about them, and I think psychic folk should ideally avoid science unless they also know enough science as well. BTW, Rupert is an absolute master at doing just that.

David
 
Last edited:
Everything is law and order, everything is logical. The extraordinary is that people always say, for instance, about Spiritualism or communication or reincarnation or whatever it may be, to do with the psychic or the spiritual, that it's not logical. Actually, the most logical thing of all is this spiritual realisation. People cling to the material and think that is the logical, but it isn't, it's the most illogical.
A lucid statement - the whole of what was posted. Absolutely on track with other sources.
 
Hi Claire

This is an intriguing thing. It suggests there is some kind of active governance of who gets to have what communicated to them. What are you thoughts?

One of the agents I spoke with for a time was quite firm that he was not there to tell us stuff, but to help us how to learn. He flat out refused tom answer some questions, but came back with real head benders in response to others.

In the Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts it seems clear that people who have no 'real need', but who want the status of talking to dead folk end up being prey to liars if they use less reputable mediums.
Hiya, very interesting and I’ve experienced the same with my own spirit teachers who also refuse to do the work for me, but lead me to understanding instead. I tend to think of it like a loving parent. We know that if we do everything for our children, we are not helping them at all. We also keep knowledge from them because we know that until they reach a certain age or level of understanding, communication of that knowledge is futile. Also, even when we communicate some depth of knowledge, children often don’t realise the depth until they hold more wisdom themselves. I’m sure I’ve not grasped teachings, even when communicated. So, I’m not sure if there’s an active governance as in a divine intelligence, or whether it’s simply a case of awareness needing to be at a certain depth before understanding can reveal itself.
 
Hi Claire

Its on Kindle for $1.53 [probably AUD on my iPhone]. White has a bunch of books on Kindle. I also noticed that Frank DeMarco came up - another intriguing writer of the same ilk - only Rita rather than Betty.

Also you might find booko.com.au handy to search for books at best price. Comes as an app for your phone as well -BookoBuddy, Brilliant resource.
Wonderful, thank you so much
 
BTW, Superqualia was quoting me!

I think it might help if ψ-folk generally just prefixed these ambiguous words with "psychic-". I know that is a bit clumsy, but science grabbed those words, and they are certainly not going to shift!

The problem is that psychic claims of almost any variety are also essentially claims about science. Because of the connection between the two subjects, scientists are tempted to speak about psychic effects while knowing nothing about them, and I think psychic folk should ideally avoid science unless they also know enough science as well. BTW, Rupert is an absolute master at doing just that.

David
I think you’re right! It does get tricky though as the two disciplines meet. I’m very fortunate to have two scientists sitting in my own development circle (one with a background in pharmaceuticals and the other in medicine, working with cancer cells). Plus, I also sit with a lawyer, trained in the detection of fraud. I’m very likely falling into the trap of speaking in the terms I often hear used around me. I’ll bear this in mind going forward.
 
This transcript (below) is from a session with the medium Leslie Flint in which a spirit provides information about reincarnation. Flint was a direct voice medium, the spirits spoke audibly in his presence. In my opinion Flint's sessions are the most reliable source of information about the afterlife.

The home page of the website is here:
https://www.leslieflint.com

Here is a link to the transcript.
https://www.leslieflint.com/d-conacher-aug-4th-1965
Douglas:​
I think the most important thing to realise in regard to reincarnation is the fact that it is something which isn't necessarily essential, in every instance. In other words, not everyone incarnates again, although many, many do - in fact, the vast majority.​
But of course, we have to go back centuries upon centuries of time and realise that there are many, many souls who have incarnated on several occasions and now do not feel the need to incarnate again. But, uh, of course one has to accept the fact that in one life on Earth one can only hope to, in a sense, skim the surface of experience, and it's often necessary to re-enter the Earth-world to live a new life; in a new guise, in a new body, as a new being. Indeed sometimes of the opposite sex. Sometimes it's essential to experience certain happenings which can only be experienced, uh, under certain conditions, which previously were quite different when you were on Earth before.​
Then again I think one should remember that there are individuals who choose to return to do a special work. Most of the great teachers and prophets of old, were very old souls who had chosen to return to do a certain work in a certain age, and set an example and show the path for others who might follow.​
...​
There are bound to be people with differing views and different strata of experience. And, of course, there are many people to whom reincarnation is repugnant and who, possibly in many instances, will not have the need to incarnate, will not want to reincarnate.​
You see, the point is, that there are so many souls on Earth who have, uh, experienced a great deal in previous lives - of which they of course remember little or nothing at all, more likely than not, nothing at all - and in consequence they do not have the time in their incarnation, to have experience of these things.​
But...and in a way it's a good thing. I mean, people always say, 'if one could remember this or that, then it would be very good evidence or proof of it...and since we don't remember, how do we know?' But the point is this, that in many instances, it would be a bad thing to have recognition or remembrance of previous lives, because that would be a barrier rather than a help.​
For instance, if you remembered certain aspects of life that were, in your own instance or own case, bad - from the point of view of the fact that you did this or that, that you should not have done, which was detrimental to your spiritual advancement...if you remembered this too vividly and knew about it too much, you would then, in the next incarnation, be on your guard and you would be artificially, you might say, avoiding things.​
In other words, when a thing happens, it must happen from within oneself. If you want to do good or if you want to live a life that is good or do certain things that are wise, then these things will spring from within oneself and come naturally.​
But if you do things because you think you should do them, it's the right thing to and you do them against your will, or if you do something because you think it's essential that you do it, because in a previous incarnation you neglected that aspect of yourself...in other words, if you do something through a kind of fear, then that's not good in itself.​
You see, it must spring naturally from one's innermost soul that you want to do something...​
People say...so many people say, 'oh well if I knew where I went wrong last time, I could avoid it.' Well, the point is, that if you knew where you went wrong or you knew what your failings were, and in this incarnation you were on your guard and you were saying to yourself, 'now I mustn't do this' or 'I mustn't do that. This is where I went wrong last time', you would probably, almost certainly, be doing something, in a sense, through fear. You wouldn't be doing it naturally, it wouldn't...​
...be springing from your innermost soul when you wanted to do something. You see, until man learns to live according to his inner conscience and his inner realisation of things that are wise and good, until man desires to do good for good's sake and not through a kind of fear...that is the trouble of course for the majority of religions.​
So much goodness comes, not through the sake of goodness or wanting particularly to be good, but but through the fear of doing otherwise, in case they are...in case one is punished, you see?​
That is one of the big faults with, uh, orthodox religion.​
Eira:​
Yes. Have you found...learnt your, um, incarnations darling?​
Oh yes I...​
Eira:​
When did you know about them?​
Douglas:​
I've known about them for some little time...​
Eira:​
Yes.​
Douglas:​
...but I'm getting to know a little more of the detail. But the point is, that there are some incarnations of which one has little knowledge or realisation, because in themselves they played a very unimportant part.​
You see, there are lives in which - I suppose the formative lives or the formative experiences of Earth - which were so basic, which were so...in any case, one has to go back to the time and the way of life of the times and also to realise that one was the product of an age to some extent.​
You see, there again, I think it's important to realise that...that people are the product of an age. And what is generally accepted as the thing to do or the outlook of life that one may have in that age, may not necessarily fit in and could not fit in with another age.​
You see, there is so much that one has to take into consideration. For instance, a person may not be, according to the age in which they live, as bad a person as perhaps we would think in retrospect. Because they are the product of an age that may have been, for instance, very cruel - and cruelty was an accepted thing.​
I mean, this may sound like an excuse, but the point is, that there are things that do not happen in your life today, which were commonplace a hundred years ago.​
For instance, you take...today you don't hang children, but a hundred years ago it wasn't an unknown thing for children who stole a loaf of bread to be hanged, you see.​
The point is, that we are the product of our age and our time and the thinking. You see, the whole point is, the thought-force of an age is so powerful...​
...that it affects the whole of life, it affects the whole of humanity and until man progresses en masse...you see, we talk about the individual progress of man which is, of course, necessary and vital and of course it must be the individual progress of man that will formulate the whole thinking of the whole human race en mass.​
But the point is, that an age is predominantly as it thinks, and the peoples of that age are the product of the minds of a previous generation...​
...that have been the formation of their own and present. So we are all, in a sense, in an age of change or time of change and in evolution.​
And an age...an individual life in a certain age, is essential and necessary and we learn, to a certain extent, and we make terrible mistakes and we have failure.​
But the point is, that it is often necessary for the human being to incarnate; in a new incarnation, in a new life, in a new age - to contribute something which is very necessary, not only to himself (or evolve or develop in himself) but to contribute to the age in which he is reborn.​
There are great instances of course of this, of great souls who, in a way, stand head and shoulders above the peoples of their time. They are great leaders or great teachers or great prophets or great seers or...in some field or other. Maybe it is in art for instance or music.​
All these great souls on which, often, the world looks upon as a genius. Or, for instance, if not that, in some instances, they are looked upon as people out of time, people that perhaps are not always accepted in their age, people who do not seem to fit in.​
These are old souls who have chosen to return, or perhaps, in some instances, have been sent back. But no one really enters into the world unwillingly. I don't think one can say that anyone is forced back. The point is, that the majority of people desire to enter into the world again. They feel the need for experiences or perhaps they feel the need to do a specific work or job.​
Everything is law and order, everything is logical. The extraordinary is that people always say, for instance, about Spiritualism or communication or reincarnation or whatever it may be, to do with the psychic or the spiritual, that it's not logical. Actually, the most logical thing of all is this spiritual realisation. People cling to the material and think that is the logical, but it isn't, it's the most illogical.​
Leslie Flint was a wonderful medium. I personally know people who sat in his séances and I’ve only ever heard positive things about both his character and his ability. I’m gutted I was only 19 when he died, so had not yet embarked on my own investigations of spirit communication. How I would have loved to hear his independent direct voice phenomena in person.
 
I think it is possible for mediums to provide evidence for reincarnation, if the spirits are willing to cooperate. Whether people will be convinced depends on the person reviewing the evidence as it does for any kind of evidence. All the controversies in the history of science show that the best interpretation of the evidence is an opinion.

But if a medium can bring through a spirit and provide verifiable information, they can also bring through information a spirit provides about its past lives that can be verified but which the medium would have no way of knowing.
I totally agree x
 
Top