Hi Michael. I would say at times I get both types of communications. I have to check my own emotions when animals come in due to my connection with the animal world ( I always tell client if I get emotional it can be my own reaction)...but I can definately describe character traits and sometimes thoughts.....
Kathy Mingo, Are Auras Real? |430|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
Hi David. As part of my synchronicity in life I met Rupert Sheldrake at a conference run by my boss at the time Lynne McTaggart ( author of The Field) we had a conference on living the field. I also had the massive honour of picking up Edgar Mitchell astronaunt from Euston Station to take him to our UFO conference. Rupert I recall was an interesting man, although I am going back years here. David if you are in the UK I would really love a meet up with you to chew the fat!!! How do I PM on here?
Hey Kathy,
Is it possible to target specific souls for communication, which have no relation to the sitters at hand? It would be interesting if one of the many psychical researchers of the past century were regularly reachable, this could provide a sort of baseline standard for mediumship.
If it is not possible to target specific souls that lack relation, why do you think that is?
Is it possible to target specific souls for communication, which have no relation to the sitters at hand? It would be interesting if one of the many psychical researchers of the past century were regularly reachable, this could provide a sort of baseline standard for mediumship.
If it is not possible to target specific souls that lack relation, why do you think that is?
I know what you mean. I've had two strange experiences involving pets. The first ties in with Skeptiko. I used to have a cat. He was a bit of an odd bod, having a habit of making strange chirruping noises instead of mewing. He died in 2012. A few years back, I was listening to a Skeptiko on mediumship when I started pondering the fact that I had never had an experience with a deceased person. No sooner had the thought come into my mind than I felt the the couch cushion directly next to my leg depress as if a small weight had landed on it. This was accompanied by a very clear sounding of my dearly-departed cat's trademark chirrup. Strange, hey? So, I suppose I still haven't had an encounter with a deceased person, but possibly a deceased cat!
Okay, second story. When I was a kid, the family dog was a Labrador. Great dog, sweet and gentle but tough when needs be. So, one night as a teen, I was getting a lift back home with a friend, early hours of the morning, we turn the last corner before my house, the car's headlights light up the front gate, and I see see the figure of a giant Labrador, sitting bolt upright, outside the gate, as if standing guard. It was probably about 6 feet high (seated), and looked very regal, something like an Egyptian statue. It was only a flash, but, thing is, my friend saw it too.
So maybe pets are more magical than we think.
Okay, second story. When I was a kid, the family dog was a Labrador. Great dog, sweet and gentle but tough when needs be. So, one night as a teen, I was getting a lift back home with a friend, early hours of the morning, we turn the last corner before my house, the car's headlights light up the front gate, and I see see the figure of a giant Labrador, sitting bolt upright, outside the gate, as if standing guard. It was probably about 6 feet high (seated), and looked very regal, something like an Egyptian statue. It was only a flash, but, thing is, my friend saw it too.
So maybe pets are more magical than we think.
Hi LetsEat...I would say it is possible yes, it has to be surely. Maybe might be more achieveable through channel. I have always wanted to contact Princess Diana. I think the reasons why are due to the sitters need for their relations and the emotional connection that occurred in life. I do think that an established bond or genetic link determines who comes through for the sitter. Theorectically we all should be able to sit down and tune into Edgar Cayce....but how would we prove it to be him? It is akin to asking a very religious person to prove they have seen god and know it is him/her....that is done by faith alone ( and arcane mythology and scripture) Would be an interesting experiment for sure. Fundamentally in one to one readings people dont give a stuff about betterment of an evolving universe they just want to know how their loved ones are..lol...
Edgar Cayce's life has been pretty thoroughly documented, we could also approach one of his living offspring and ask for information about him that never made it into books, such as what hand he wrote with or what kind of cologne he wore - then compare that with the transcript delivered through trance. This doesn't preclude spiritual imposters but it's at least a start.
This seems like a rational approach, but it has a potential flaw. This is not to say it will not work, but if it does not, it is important to understand the possible flaw.
Spirit is not a huge fan of handing out easy marks for following simple rational steps. Were it otherwise the 'proof' would have been in centuries ago. We must remember that efforts to prove life after death have been going on for a long time and have not amounted to much - if the approach has been to rely entirely on detached rational methods.
There is a persistent presumption that God should be eager to demonstrate his existence. But how's that working out? It allows some folk become comfortable atheists.You hear them say "If God is real, then why does he....?" It seems. rather, not only is there no eagerness to deliver proof, there is intent to make getting it very difficult at times and then clobbering some poor sod with a life changing experience.
I spent a few years interacting with an inner planes teacher who made it clear from the start that he was not about telling us stuff, but about teaching us how to learn. I got told some stuff - but nothing I could use to claim any authority, or use to prove anything. Mostly what I got was tantalising bits of a picture I needed to work hard to fill in and fit together.
With him and other agencies I had compelling evidence of reality and power via powerful physical effects, which I recorded, and for which I have no evidence other than contemporaneous written record.
That said, there are instances of 'proof' being provided, and there are books that describe that 'proof'. But unless you are there when the 'proof' is delivered all you have is a witness account that you have to believe - and that can be fabricated.
The lesson I took away from my experiences is that we will get hints to keep us engaged, but getting a reading that confirms information about an individual isn't as meaningful as we think it might be - if the exercise is about testing the validity of the channel. If we take the view we can say 'Prove to me that you are real by giving me information I can check.' the source might form the view that this is petty and disrespectful. The source has no need to prove to us anything. We have the need. We are not in charge. We don't set the rules.
Kathy?
Spirit is not a huge fan of handing out easy marks for following simple rational steps. Were it otherwise the 'proof' would have been in centuries ago. We must remember that efforts to prove life after death have been going on for a long time and have not amounted to much - if the approach has been to rely entirely on detached rational methods.
There is a persistent presumption that God should be eager to demonstrate his existence. But how's that working out? It allows some folk become comfortable atheists.You hear them say "If God is real, then why does he....?" It seems. rather, not only is there no eagerness to deliver proof, there is intent to make getting it very difficult at times and then clobbering some poor sod with a life changing experience.
I spent a few years interacting with an inner planes teacher who made it clear from the start that he was not about telling us stuff, but about teaching us how to learn. I got told some stuff - but nothing I could use to claim any authority, or use to prove anything. Mostly what I got was tantalising bits of a picture I needed to work hard to fill in and fit together.
With him and other agencies I had compelling evidence of reality and power via powerful physical effects, which I recorded, and for which I have no evidence other than contemporaneous written record.
That said, there are instances of 'proof' being provided, and there are books that describe that 'proof'. But unless you are there when the 'proof' is delivered all you have is a witness account that you have to believe - and that can be fabricated.
The lesson I took away from my experiences is that we will get hints to keep us engaged, but getting a reading that confirms information about an individual isn't as meaningful as we think it might be - if the exercise is about testing the validity of the channel. If we take the view we can say 'Prove to me that you are real by giving me information I can check.' the source might form the view that this is petty and disrespectful. The source has no need to prove to us anything. We have the need. We are not in charge. We don't set the rules.
Kathy?
This is the most insightful thing I have read. Agreed we are not in charge, nor would we want or should be. My path ( and I can only talk about my own) is one of mystery and synchronized discovery, information drip fed to me in order I can align the information with the heart understanding. I thank you for this beautiful response
Hi Kathy
I am surprised and touched by your response. I think you beautifully encapsulate the thought I intended to express - "My path ( and I can only talk about my own) is one of mystery and synchronized discovery, information drip fed to me in order I can align the information with the heart understanding." I suspect this is the way it is for all authentic engagement.
Every time I have seen, or read about, efforts to make it anything else there has been disaster. I have been part of situations that have turned to crap because parties have imposed their ambition and ego that has not been taken well by inner sources. For me it has always been a dedication to rational knowledge and power that has gone badly. Every time the absence of the heart dimension has been telling.
Much of skeptiko attends to the challenge of science and reason in relation to consciousness, and this is perfectly proper as our culture transitions to what must come next. However we have yet to understand the importance of the heart in relation to the head. I have read that the soul connects with the body via two strands - to the head and the heart. I have a vague notion that there are the same cells as in the brain as in the heart and the gut. I am sure there are others who have a definitive understanding.
My point is that while the brain plays an important role in our life in the physical body it does not do so in separation from heart and gut. It is a peculiar 'rational' conceit that denies or devalues heart and gut and champions only the head/brain.
What is your experience here? Do you feel your connection is via head connection or heart connection?
I am surprised and touched by your response. I think you beautifully encapsulate the thought I intended to express - "My path ( and I can only talk about my own) is one of mystery and synchronized discovery, information drip fed to me in order I can align the information with the heart understanding." I suspect this is the way it is for all authentic engagement.
Every time I have seen, or read about, efforts to make it anything else there has been disaster. I have been part of situations that have turned to crap because parties have imposed their ambition and ego that has not been taken well by inner sources. For me it has always been a dedication to rational knowledge and power that has gone badly. Every time the absence of the heart dimension has been telling.
Much of skeptiko attends to the challenge of science and reason in relation to consciousness, and this is perfectly proper as our culture transitions to what must come next. However we have yet to understand the importance of the heart in relation to the head. I have read that the soul connects with the body via two strands - to the head and the heart. I have a vague notion that there are the same cells as in the brain as in the heart and the gut. I am sure there are others who have a definitive understanding.
My point is that while the brain plays an important role in our life in the physical body it does not do so in separation from heart and gut. It is a peculiar 'rational' conceit that denies or devalues heart and gut and champions only the head/brain.
What is your experience here? Do you feel your connection is via head connection or heart connection?
Well, we'd be asking Edgar Cayce, or Leslie Flint, or Harry Price or some other researcher who spent their entire life trying to prove the existence of the afterlife (and thus why not would they also spend their afterlife doing the same?), not God.
There seems to be different styles, the spirits and information brought in by Cayce and Flint were often all about handing out information. Whereas the typical spirit guide experience is very hands off and more about self development. This may reflect the location of the spirit, or their relative "vibrational" level. The farther from the earth planes a spirit is said to reside the less interest they have in earthly affairs.
Unless im mistaken, this is one of the fundamental methodologies by spiritualist mediums around the world.
I think this idea ought to simply be tested experimentally, rather than dismissed through philosophy though I don't think that's what you're doing, I would hope that people aren't put off from trying to test these things merely through because of the doubts you've expressed.
There seems to be different styles, the spirits and information brought in by Cayce and Flint were often all about handing out information. Whereas the typical spirit guide experience is very hands off and more about self development. This may reflect the location of the spirit, or their relative "vibrational" level. The farther from the earth planes a spirit is said to reside the less interest they have in earthly affairs.
Unless im mistaken, this is one of the fundamental methodologies by spiritualist mediums around the world.
I think this idea ought to simply be tested experimentally, rather than dismissed through philosophy though I don't think that's what you're doing, I would hope that people aren't put off from trying to test these things merely through because of the doubts you've expressed.
I am not suggesting this. Rather that when efforts to find verification do not work, the fact of not working is not down to spirit nothing real. Sometimes 'proof' comes as a healing, or a visitation from a loved one. My point was that if one seeks to engage spirit from a purely intellectual perspective and expects spirit to obediently deliver up 'proof' required - don't expect that to work. Mind you it might do.
I have had little to do with spiritualists. I have visited mediums and received direction that has been stunningly detailed and accurate - but other times inconclusive and vague. The detailed and accurate experience happened at a time of existential crisis and said if I did A then B would happen - which it did, right down to the week. A other time, evidence of accuracy came only after about 3 years, looking back.
My sense if that things are different for each individual. I know people who seek 'guidance' from spirit in many forms and never get anything useful - and sometimes end up enmeshed in bizarre fantasies contrived by fake 'channellers'. Kathy said something about people not taking responsibility - and I think this is on the money. Some folk want a lazy out by asking spirit. If they are lucky they will be told off, if they are not they will be conned.
I have a relative who cannot get advice from spirit, no matter what. I know why. It would do her no good. Something has to click in her first. Its frustrating for her, and I feel her frustration. She is looking, in my view, for a 'magical solution' that will not come - because she is putting her effort into finding the magical solution instead of doing the hard yards herself [mercifully she will not read this post].
I think we get what we need, not what we want. But often we don't know the difference between need and want. But spirit does - and we need to know that.
So I am not saying don't try, but understand when you do and you don't get what you want that the fault does not lie in spirit.
I have had little to do with spiritualists. I have visited mediums and received direction that has been stunningly detailed and accurate - but other times inconclusive and vague. The detailed and accurate experience happened at a time of existential crisis and said if I did A then B would happen - which it did, right down to the week. A other time, evidence of accuracy came only after about 3 years, looking back.
My sense if that things are different for each individual. I know people who seek 'guidance' from spirit in many forms and never get anything useful - and sometimes end up enmeshed in bizarre fantasies contrived by fake 'channellers'. Kathy said something about people not taking responsibility - and I think this is on the money. Some folk want a lazy out by asking spirit. If they are lucky they will be told off, if they are not they will be conned.
I have a relative who cannot get advice from spirit, no matter what. I know why. It would do her no good. Something has to click in her first. Its frustrating for her, and I feel her frustration. She is looking, in my view, for a 'magical solution' that will not come - because she is putting her effort into finding the magical solution instead of doing the hard yards herself [mercifully she will not read this post].
I think we get what we need, not what we want. But often we don't know the difference between need and want. But spirit does - and we need to know that.
So I am not saying don't try, but understand when you do and you don't get what you want that the fault does not lie in spirit.