Theos-Talk Archives (September 1996 Message tl00241)

Alan,

>>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.
>  .....

Thanks for adding some of your experiences and thoughts. Most interesting.


>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!

Sounds entirely reasonable. Something to keep in mind.


>>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!

Your condition is clearly far advanced - ahead of the rest of humanity, of
course! And I know that you do take it seriously.

The corresponding word would have to be "puellile", from the Latin, wouldn't
it? I wouldn't blame anybody for not wanting to invent it, though.


>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.

Yes, we sure can do with a baggage-free word.

Murray
Member TI and the TS in NZ