Theos-Talk Archives (September 1996 Message tl00208)

In message <1.5.4.16.19960917152231.11ff2ec4@iprolink.co.nz>, Murray
Stentiford <mas.jag@iprolink.co.nz> writes
>
>One of Hodson's observations was that most of the deva kingdom were too
>wide-ranging in their consciousness and remote from ordinary concerns, or
>just too busy, to care what people thought of them.

My own empiracally derived conclusion - totally unprovable, of course.

..snip...
>
>Another was that there are some members or groups whose work does bring them
>into contact with humanity, and that some of these are willing, even keen,
>to find human co-workers in fields like healing, music, ritual, childbirth,
>agriculture, and just plain ol' life in the home. He's not the only observer
>to report this.

My own empiracally derived conclusion - totally unprovable, of course.
There were a lot of them at Lockerbie, like high up in the sky where the
"dead" were.  Many of them were former humans like ourselves, but
discarnate.  Doing the Bhodisattva bit, maybe.  Many "angelic" entities
seem to be ex-humans in a "higher"  - or better "further" - stage of
development.

Clairvoyance can take many forms, and cannot therefore, IMHO, lend
itself to the scientific method of observation, much as I repeatedly
advocate its use.  The most important factor, as I see it (from
experience) is for *the clairvoyant* to learn as early as possibly that
a strike rate of 100% cannot be reached, that 50% is doing well, and
that even that 50% is liable to subjective interpretation.  I was once
told by a communicating something/someone:

"We can only use the vocabulary we find already available in your mind."
(For direct communication).  The clear inference was to study as much as
possible and to acquire as wide a vocabulary as possible!  I *have* been
given clear and sometimes exact details of where to look (down here) for
required information.
>
>Hope this helps round out the picture.
>
And I hope this may help to add to it.  In spite of my often puerile
(what's the feminine for "puerile?") attempts at humor, I do take all
this occult stuff quite seriously - I have to!

Taking the scientific approach as best I can, I have long described all
such contacts, whether otherwise known as devas, angles of whatever, as
hIntelligences - this is the only *defintive* means I can think of to
avoid dogmatic, theological, theosophical or other preconceptions.

Alan
---------
Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW)