TALKING EVIL WITH ALEX TSAKIRIS -- GORDON WHITE -- RUNE SOUP

Last comment, I felt compelled to point out it seemed, David, that you were conflating or confusing (maybe misread) "contact" and "contract." I also used this the opportunity to express as best I can now (sadly the book is on back order) what I believe Tom conveyed - maybe I got it reasonably right... hopefully Tom will straighten it out if it isn't reasonably right on.
I certainly wasn't confusing those two words, but that doesn't mean that I am clear what 'contract' means in this context. I mean ordinary contracts depend on things written on paper, with two or more signatures and a suite of lawyers to intervene if necessary to make the thing work.

In the spirit context, what is the equivalent - is it enough if the spirit says, "If you do X, I'll do Y" and you agree to that, or does there have to be some specific form of words involving the word 'soul'? If the latter, does it make any difference if the human in question doesn't believe in souls?

I suppose in essence I am asking just how safe or otherwise the spirit world is? Can you innicently go out there and be sucked uncontrollably into something evil, or do you have to be tempted in some way, and give way to that temptation?

David
 
So are there any types of contracts that can't be ended that way?

David
I certainly wasn't confusing those two words, but that doesn't mean that I am clear what 'contract' means in this context. I mean ordinary contracts depend on things written on paper, with two or more signatures and a suite of lawyers to intervene if necessary to make the thing work.

In the spirit context, what is the equivalent - is it enough if the spirit says, "If you do X, I'll do Y" and you agree to that, or does there have to be some specific form of words involving the word 'soul'? If the latter, does it make any difference if the human in question doesn't believe in souls?

I suppose in essence I am asking just how safe or otherwise the spirit world is? Can you innicently go out there and be sucked uncontrollably into something evil, or do you have to be tempted in some way, and give way to that temptation?

David
David, I'm not sure that I used the word "contract" myself. It is appropriate in its broadest sense, but the words I use more often are "agreement," "permission," or "deal." When I work with someone, and a spirit is present, then I know a contact has been made. The question becomes, "What is it about the client that resulted in the acceptance of the spirit's contact? Like with ET's, an ego-state of a client from a past life may be approached by the spirit of her husband from that life who did not go to the Light after he died. When that ego-state accepts the contact, I term this a "permission." The ego-state is saying "yes" to the contact. A common scenario is a past life ego-state, created as a person approaches death, feeling terrified, and is promised immortality for allowing access. It is also possible, for example, that sophisticated dark souls can insert an etheric or energy device within the soul which can travel with the soul into the Light after the person died. That device then can act as a beacon/access in a future lifetime. As Gerod pointed out, dark souls cannot follow a soul into the Light and know when and where it will next incarnate. They can develop strategies, deceits, devices, however, that, in a sense, is "marked" and can be checked for when a soul does incarnate. (Keep in mind that talking in terms of "lifetimes" is from our human perspective. Dark souls, operating in a timeless dimension, are not necessarily operating in that framework.) The possible scenarios for these contacts is endless. In its most basic terms, an agreement or permission is anytime a person, or part of a person, says, "yes" to a spirit. I'll stop for now.

(As I wrote this response, I thought I would add something else Gerod said to me early on. He said a soul can only incarnate through the Light. Souls in darkness cannot incarnate. If true, it would be extremely significant for our understanding.)
 
Thanks Tom - there is so much in your response!
A common scenario is a past life ego-state, created as a person approaches death, feeling terrified, and is promised immortality for allowing access.
A great sales strategy - sell them something they (presumably) already have!
It is also possible, for example, that sophisticated dark souls can insert an etheric or energy device within the soul which can travel with the soul into the Light after the person died. That device then can act as a beacon/access in a future lifetime. As Gerod pointed out, dark souls cannot follow a soul into the Light and know when and where it will next incarnate. They can develop strategies, deceits, devices, however, that, in a sense, is "marked" and can be checked for when a soul does incarnate.
Do you think that you can fix such a patient and remove this curse from their future incarnations?
(Keep in mind that talking in terms of "lifetimes" is from our human perspective. Dark souls, operating in a timeless dimension, are not necessarily operating in that framework.)
We have talked a lot about the meaning of timelessness here on Skeptiko. My tentative hypothesis is that a timeless being still experiences time, but in a time dimension at right angles to ours. Thus he could view our entire timeline, but he would have a timeline of his own, because without it practically no verb makes any sense because they imply a before and an afterwards. Think of words like 'hope', 'fear', 'catch', 'discover', 'understand',......
The possible scenarios for these contacts is endless. In its most basic terms, an agreement or permission is anytime a person, or part of a person, says, "yes" to a spirit. I'll stop for now.

(As I wrote this response, I thought I would add something else Gerod said to me early on. He said a soul can only incarnate through the Light. Souls in darkness cannot incarnate. If true, it would be extremely significant for our understanding.)
I feel I don't know enough about this light. "Going to the light" sounds awfully like being given a pleasant sedative, and then being euthanised! What does one do in the light for all eternity? Some explorers such as Cyrus Kirkpatrick and Jurgen Ziewe describe an afterlife in which many people experience something close to normal life on Earth. Do you feel your results are consistent with that or not?

I am curious, do you tell your patients all these details after they finish treatment, or do you do as a conventional doctor might do - only answer questions if they ask them?

David
 
Last edited:
David, I'm not sure that I used the word "contract" myself. It is appropriate in its broadest sense, but the words I use more often are "agreement," "permission," or "deal." When I work with someone, and a spirit is present, then I know a contact has been made. The question becomes, "What is it about the client that resulted in the acceptance of the spirit's contact? Like with ET's, an ego-state of a client from a past life may be approached by the spirit of her husband from that life who did not go to the Light after he died. When that ego-state accepts the contact, I term this a "permission." The ego-state is saying "yes" to the contact. A common scenario is a past life ego-state, created as a person approaches death, feeling terrified, and is promised immortality for allowing access. It is also possible, for example, that sophisticated dark souls can insert an etheric or energy device within the soul which can travel with the soul into the Light after the person died. That device then can act as a beacon/access in a future lifetime. As Gerod pointed out, dark souls cannot follow a soul into the Light and know when and where it will next incarnate. They can develop strategies, deceits, devices, however, that, in a sense, is "marked" and can be checked for when a soul does incarnate. (Keep in mind that talking in terms of "lifetimes" is from our human perspective. Dark souls, operating in a timeless dimension, are not necessarily operating in that framework.) The possible scenarios for these contacts is endless. In its most basic terms, an agreement or permission is anytime a person, or part of a person, says, "yes" to a spirit. I'll stop for now.

(As I wrote this response, I thought I would add something else Gerod said to me early on. He said a soul can only incarnate through the Light. Souls in darkness cannot incarnate. If true, it would be extremely significant for our understanding.)
Hi Tom. I just purchased your book so forgive me if you talk about this topic...do you have any thoughts on why spirits only attach to certain people?.I've never had any thing like what you talk about...why do malevolent entities only effect some people?
 

Alex

Administrator
Risking butting in here... "contact" is one thing, "contract" is another.

It seems "contact" with any entity/being where the entity/being may be oriented to darkness is likely to have been facilitated by creating a vulnerability at the level of the ego-state that involves a sub-personality created by suppression of a trauma (and there could be multiple such events playing into and increasing the same vulnerability). And it seems Tom has suggested that contact, once initiated, could remain such that in a future lifetime, that contact is resumed.

And lastly Tom has suggested that contact can be cut off. I assume the process (protocols Tom mentioned) whereby the sub-personality is offered to move in the direction of the Light - as Tom has said, ie. 'into the knowledge' of its reasons for suppression and that access to the soul (the Light) is available. And that if the sub-personality chooses to access the Light, this results in integration of the sub-personality with the self which, I also assume, has to be helpful in increasing the "integrity" (my word as a metaphor) of the soul - (I like Alex calling it "the soul's journey").

And so anyways, poof, there goes the entryway for the pesky third party entity/being (regardless it is a spirit or an ET of another dimension, for example) and contact is terminated as the vulnerability has vanished and the individual has chosen to end the contact.

A "contract" (a much different thing) was addressed by Tom in the interview where (if I recall correctly) Tom said, essentially, that there wasn't such a thing that binds a soul. It seemed Tom did suggest that the harder one dives into the darkness, especially when an ensouled being generates intent to harm another soul, to violate a soul, that to escape that trajectory was much harder, but there wasn't such a thing as some "binding contract."

Note when I write, "Tom said," I also am referring to what Tom has stated was information from Gerod.

Last comment, I felt compelled to point out it seemed, David, that you were conflating or confusing (maybe misread) "contact" and "contract." I also used this the opportunity to express as best I can now (sadly the book is on back order) what I believe Tom conveyed - maybe I got it reasonably right... hopefully Tom will straighten it out if it isn't reasonably right on.
thanks for this... it is exactly as I understood it.
 

Alex

Administrator
David, I'm not sure that I used the word "contract" myself. It is appropriate in its broadest sense, but the words I use more often are "agreement," "permission," or "deal." When I work with someone, and a spirit is present, then I know a contact has been made. The question becomes, "What is it about the client that resulted in the acceptance of the spirit's contact? Like with ET's, an ego-state of a client from a past life may be approached by the spirit of her husband from that life who did not go to the Light after he died. When that ego-state accepts the contact, I term this a "permission." The ego-state is saying "yes" to the contact. A common scenario is a past life ego-state, created as a person approaches death, feeling terrified, and is promised immortality for allowing access. It is also possible, for example, that sophisticated dark souls can insert an etheric or energy device within the soul which can travel with the soul into the Light after the person died. That device then can act as a beacon/access in a future lifetime. As Gerod pointed out, dark souls cannot follow a soul into the Light and know when and where it will next incarnate. They can develop strategies, deceits, devices, however, that, in a sense, is "marked" and can be checked for when a soul does incarnate. (Keep in mind that talking in terms of "lifetimes" is from our human perspective. Dark souls, operating in a timeless dimension, are not necessarily operating in that framework.) The possible scenarios for these contacts is endless. In its most basic terms, an agreement or permission is anytime a person, or part of a person, says, "yes" to a spirit. I'll stop for now.

(As I wrote this response, I thought I would add something else Gerod said to me early on. He said a soul can only incarnate through the Light. Souls in darkness cannot incarnate. If true, it would be extremely significant for our understanding.)
thanks for clarifying.

David, I may have confused things by using the term "contract" during the interview and in the introduction... but I do think it's useful in terms of dispelling "deal with the devil notion"

 
I thank you, Tom. I just ordered the Kindle version of the first of the trilogy. I have dipped into it and already discern that it will speak to me.

I would be grateful for your opinion on the adage I have seen in many contexts, which I have always dsimissed as baloney, that you will attract what you focus on. Most recently I have seen Alex state a stronger version: you will become what you focus on.

This adage was traced to the Vedas in Alex's most recent interview. I still find it to be baloney, indeed inherently absurd. You and Alex are still intact after focusing on evil !

Many thanks in advance,

Lone Voice
I do believe in the adage. Gerod said to me a long time ago that "thought is the most powerful force in the universe." When I talked elsewhere about "our power" and the "power of consciousness," this would be included in those statements. This doesn't mean that developing that level of consciousness is easy but using consciousness and intent to create/call to you what you wish to manifest sets forces in motion. Lots more could be said about this.
 
I do believe in the adage. Gerod said to me a long time ago that "thought is the most powerful force in the universe." When I talked elsewhere about "our power" and the "power of consciousness," this would be included in those statements. This doesn't mean that developing that level of consciousness is easy but using consciousness and intent to create/call to you what you wish to manifest sets forces in motion. Lots more could be said about this.
I wonder what happens when this happens in consensus reality. Take for example an election that can produce a result A or a result B. Some people with the ability to use consciousness in that way are to be found on both sides. I can think of two possibilities:

1) The conscious creators push in opposite directions and partially cancel each other out. Thus at least some conscious creators do not get their wish.

2) Every conscious creator morphs reality according to his/her views, and at some point reality splits into two - A wins in one reality, and B wins in the other reality. Those realities might or might not be able to merge later on.

Seth seems to suggest a reality that contains more than one time line (as opposed to multiple time dimensions), and I must say, option 2 appeals to me aesthetically!

Do you have any thoughts - do write "lots more", but I suggest we leave the outcomes A and B abstract to avoid an obvious pitfall!

David
 
I wonder what happens when this happens in consensus reality. Take for example an election that can produce a result A or a result B. Some people with the ability to use consciousness in that way are to be found on both sides. I can think of two possibilities:

1) The conscious creators push in opposite directions and partially cancel each other out. Thus at least some conscious creators do not get their wish.

2) Every conscious creator morphs reality according to his/her views, and at some point reality splits into two - A wins in one reality, and B wins in the other reality. Those realities might or might not be able to merge later on.

Seth seems to suggest a reality that contains more than one time line (as opposed to multiple time dimensions), and I must say, option 2 appeals to me aesthetically!

Do you have any thoughts - do write "lots more", but I suggest we leave the outcomes A and B abstract to avoid an obvious pitfall!

David
I vote for #1. You can't dictate equality. There's gotta be winners and losers or the economy doesn't function. The Left wants everyone to get their wish, but it ain't gonna happen.

The #2 universal basic income model would essentially mean everyone else but you is a NPC.
 
I do believe in the adage. Gerod said to me a long time ago that "thought is the most powerful force in the universe." When I talked elsewhere about "our power" and the "power of consciousness," this would be included in those statements. This doesn't mean that developing that level of consciousness is easy but using consciousness and intent to create/call to you what you wish to manifest sets forces in motion. Lots more could be said about this.
The Law of Attraction?? Does that really work?
 
@Alex - is Phil Harland on your radar? He has a whole podcast series on the cultural history of Satan.

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator:"Philip A. Harland" satan

also: if anyone googles him I'd avoid the video of his presentation to Dennison Univ. His ideas are much better articulated in the podcast.
Hi, I see dozens of podcasts... It would take hours and hours for me to get to the answer I seek (if he has it in any of these podcasts) - The question I have is, when was the first "known" - meaning, we have, today, a reasonably reliable set of evidence to suggest - when was the first know representation of a "god" or being of any sort that represents an opposition to "God" that would be seen to give "God" a good "run for his money?"

And, this question, of course, can only be asked once "God" appears on the scene, yes? I guess the question might be better asked, when did the first "God" being (a representation of monotheism) appear on the scene?

And from what I think I know, "God" is not that old, thus Satan can't be either, right?

I put my money on this: The human race on earth today could be one of many iterations of a level of "human" with reasonably capable cognitive abilities, including the possibility our most ancient earthly ancestors were the children of "human beings" (or close enough) that were not born on this planet. So in the context of say, 100,000, if "God" and Satan arose as a dynamic that captured the attention of swaths of humanity, say, 5,000 years ago... what does that really say about either Satan or "God?" It says we made them up.

Note: I am not speaking of "God" in terms of what the perennial philosophy refers to when God is discussed. I am not referring to God that is found in traditional metaphysics. (Both are essentially the same thing - perennial philosophy and traditionalist (or "true") metaphysics).
 
Last edited:
I'm on episode 7.3.

Earliest you had the battle archetype -- e.g. the younger gods defeating the older gods.

A bit later you get a moral element introduced: good fighting evil -- i.e. order fighting chaos. In this iteration, order does not defeat chaos; it only pushes it back/keeps it at bay.

Zoroastrianism then later introduces the idea that God/good will someday defeat evil for ever, leading to a "heaven on earth" type state.

that's as far as I've gotten :)

Satan has not been introduced yet.
 
Last edited:
The Law of Attraction?? Does that really work?
Absolutely. With a few caveats: 1) There are other laws at work too. 2) Figuring out what you really want is difficult. 3) The subconscious part of you makes up more of you than the conscious part of you, so your conscious intent is not the whole picture. Bringing the totality of your being into alignment with a singular purpose requires a monumental lifelong effort.

That's not to say casual dabbling in focusing your intentions won't produce some results. After a period of initial success, you might find your powers of the will to be fleeting and diminishing or that your results become tainted as in a dream where it starts off so close to that tantalizing thing, but then it is taken away or morphs into something else, and you spend the last few minutes of your dreams trying to get back to that place, but you only end up waking yourself up.
 
Absolutely. With a few caveats: 1) There are other laws at work too. 2) Figuring out what you really want is difficult. 3) The subconscious part of you makes up more of you than the conscious part of you, so your conscious intent is not the whole picture. Bringing the totality of your being into alignment with a singular purpose requires a monumental lifelong effort.

That's not to say casual dabbling in focusing your intentions won't produce some results. After a period of initial success, you might find your powers of the will to be fleeting and diminishing or that your results become tainted as in a dream where it starts off so close to that tantalizing thing, but then it is taken away or morphs into something else, and you spend the last few minutes of your dreams trying to get back to that place, but you only end up waking yourself up.
Is there a method that you've tried and have found successful? I've read so much about it and it seems likes there's so many ways to practice that it's kind of overwhelming.
 
I do believe in the adage. Gerod said to me a long time ago that "thought is the most powerful force in the universe." When I talked elsewhere about "our power" and the "power of consciousness," this would be included in those statements. This doesn't mean that developing that level of consciousness is easy but using consciousness and intent to create/call to you what you wish to manifest sets forces in motion. Lots more could be said about this.
Thank you, Tom. I was not talking about the power of thought to create but the purported danger of thought focuisng on something. This form of the adgage claims that we need to avoid focusing on evil or we will / might well (?) atttract it to us (Vedas) or even become it (Alex). Yet you and I and Alex and this froum are focusing on evil without those dire effects. (I realize I was not clear in my post inqury about this and I apologize.)
 
Last edited:
Top