psychics, sensitives and mediums

comments welcomed

Sensitives

A ‘sensitive’ is someone who is able to detect the presence of ‘unseen’ individuals in other dimensions of existence. The individuals detected may, or may not, have once lived on this earth. Hence one description of dimensions of existence may not correspond with others. Sensitives may make contact with those they are detecting – speaking to and hearing - but if they don’t act as a ‘go-between’ they would not be termed mediums. Any guidance would be for the benefit of the sensitive.

…

thats definately me , Mac..

I am very sensitive to spiritual presence...however I do not necessarily know who it is. Of recent weeks, I have sensed presence several times per day, very persistant, but no actual contact made. TBH, it can be quite irritating to the point I did say to them either make yourself known to me in a way I can understand, or please leave me alone....it eased off..:D, although they still flutter around now and again..but I don't hear or see anything. I just have the physical chills to the core of my bones!

thats definately me , Mac..

I am very sensitive to spiritual presence...however I do not necessarily know who it is. Of recent weeks, I have sensed presence several times per day, very persistant, but no actual contact made. TBH, it can be quite irritating to the point I did say to them either make yourself known to me in a way I can understand, or please leave me alone....it eased off..:D, although they still flutter around now and again..but I don't hear or see anything. I just have the physical chills to the core of my bones!

thanks, Fleur....maybe I'm on the right lines...;):D

Definitions like this put people's exeriences in boxes. This makes me feel uneasy because it's trying to describe the transcendent in metaphors. In reality the spiritual realm is far greater than we can comprehend, and we can only see glimpses of the infinite.

By its very nature the infinite must be continous and therefore the first reaction should be acceptance. Mankind is driven to put a name or label on everything, to file it away and make sure it correctly described and stored in the appropriate draw. But the infinite doesn't fit into a filing cabinet.

For example, it's like describing the Earth. If we had not see the photos of the Earth taken from space, we could only describe it from what we see. So a peron living in the mountains of Scotland would describe the Earth in a totally different way to a person from Sahara region.

So IMHO, what we are immaterial, but I am glad and thankful for the beauty of what has been revealed to us.

Myarka.

Definitions like this put people's exeriences in boxes. This makes me feel uneasy because it's trying to describe the transcendent in metaphors. In reality the spiritual realm is far greater than we can comprehend, and we can only see glimpses of the infinite.

By its very nature the infinite must be continous and therefore the first reaction should be acceptance. Mankind is driven to put a name or label on everything, to file it away and make sure it correctly described and stored in the appropriate draw. But the infinite doesn't fit into a filing cabinet.

For example, it's like describing the Earth. If we had not see the photos of the Earth taken from space, we could only describe it from what we see. So a peron living in the mountains of Scotland would describe the Earth in a totally different way to a person from Sahara region.

So IMHO, what we are immaterial, but I am glad and thankful for the beauty of what has been revealed to us.

Myarka.

For you it's plain and simple I'd guess, just as it is for me. But for others it isn't, and they get very confused (I've seen it) about who can do what, or who say they can!

If we can explain it clearly, then they will have a better chance of understanding...however simplified the explanation. It's less-bad than many have at the moment... They can build on it as a foundation and refine the quality as they go along.

I'd much sooner they had a few solid boxes to start their own building on - wouldn't you?

For you it's plain and simple I'd guess, just as it is for me. But for others it isn't, and they get very confused (I've seen it) about who can do what, or who say they can!

If we can explain it clearly, then they will have a better chance of understanding...however simplified the explanation. It's less-bad than many have at the moment... They can build on it as a foundation and refine the quality as they go along.

I'd much sooner they had a few solid boxes to start their own building on - wouldn't you?

Indeed...:cool:

I used to love watching the Kung Fu TV series in the seventies. One of my favourite quotes from blind Master Po was "do not replace one illusion with another." I was only in my early teens when I heard this but it made a big impact on me.

By its very nature the infinite must be continous and therefore the first reaction should be acceptance. Mankind is driven to put a name or label on everything, to file it away and make sure it correctly described and stored in the appropriate draw. But the infinite doesn't fit into a filing cabinet.

I tend to agree with Myarka but one thing troubles me a little with this view is that even the idea of "the infinite" is another attempt to fit "the infinite into a filling cabinet."

All must be interconnected, yes, yet all remains discrete. You cannot have a connection if there are not two or more beings to be connected. You cannot have a relationship if there is no other to related to. You cannot have love without a lover and beloved.

Acceptant is very much the key as the first rule but it must also be acceptance with a quality of love. And projection or desire to find an object that fits the imagination is one way to create one more illusion which will also have a shadow.

Norbu

I used to love watching the Kung Fu TV series in the seventies. One of my favourite quotes from blind Master Po was "do not replace one illusion with another." I was only in my early teens when I heard this but it made a big impact on me.

I tend to agree with Myarka but one thing troubles me a little with this view is that even the idea of "the infinite" is another attempt to fit "the infinite into a filling cabinet."

All must be interconnected, yes, yet all remains discrete. You cannot have a connection if there are not two or more beings to be connected. You cannot have a relationship if there is no other to related to. You cannot have love without a lover and beloved.

Acceptant is very much the key as the first rule but it must also be acceptance with a quality of love. And projection or desire to find an object that fits the imagination is one way to create one more illusion which will also have a shadow.

Norbu

Kinda lost the original thread topic, wouldn't you agree?

Where did the subject of 'psychics, sensitives and mediums' get to in all the above.....?:confused:

I tend to agree with Myarka but one thing troubles me a little with this view is that even the idea of "the infinite" is another attempt to fit "the infinite into a filling cabinet."

All must be interconnected, yes, yet all remains discrete. You cannot have a connection if there are not two or more beings to be connected. You cannot have a relationship if there is no other to related to. You cannot have love without a lover and beloved.

At the molecular level everything is interconnected, and therefore this collection of molecules we call being came from somewhere. When we pass on, they will be recycled into something else and become part of new forms. This constant recycling has been happening since the dawn of time and will continue.

But back to the topic:

Kinda lost the original thread topic, wouldn't you agree?

Where did the subject of 'psychics, sensitives and mediums' get to in all the above.....?:confused:

I wouldn't agree because these terms are so limiting and they limit the infinite to the wisdom to Earth consciousness and that is like putting barriers in the way of learning.

We all see different facets of the infinite, and what I see is not what you see and vice-versa, and there may or may not be overlaps. But it doesn't matter, because the intent and the message are what's essential, and the method should be of no consequence.

Myarka.

"I wouldn't agree because these terms are so limiting and they limit the infinite to the wisdom to Earth consciousness and that is like putting barriers in the way of learning."

quod erat demonstrandum

They were meant as the starting point, never the destination....From there you can move forward, rather than plunging beginners into a pool where they can hardly hope to tread water, let alone swim...

Kinda lost the original thread topic, wouldn't you agree?

Hi mac,

My comments were perhaps not clear enough.

Where did the subject of 'psychics, sensitives and mediums' get to in all the above.....?:confused:

One of my favourite quotes from blind Master Po was "do not replace one illusion with another."

My view is that most spiritual beings perceived by psychics, sensitives and mediums are projections of some form of unresolved aspect of self. The only protection from the dangers of becomming attached to the objects of self projection is to constantly do this:

Acceptant is very much the key as the first rule but it must also be acceptance with a quality of love.

However, my mind is not utterly convinced of my skepticism:

I tend to agree with Myarka but one thing troubles me a little with this view is that even the idea of "the infinite" is another attempt to fit "the infinite into a filling cabinet."

And:

All must be interconnected, yes, yet all remains discrete. You cannot have a connection if there are not two or more beings to be connected. You cannot have a relationship if there is no other to related to. You cannot have love without a lover and beloved.

What there is we do not know. To know too much (to be deluded) is the greatest cause of suffering.

Does that explain my thinking better?

Norbu

Hi mac,

My comments were perhaps not clear enough.

My view is that most spiritual beings perceived by psychics, sensitives and mediums are projections of some form of unresolved aspect of self. The only protection from the dangers of becomming attached to the objects of self projection is to constantly do this:

However, my mind is not utterly convinced of my skepticism:

And:

What there is we do not know. To know too much (to be deluded) is the greatest cause of suffering.

Does that explain my thinking better?

Norbu

scarcely...and it's wholly from a personal perspective.

It does not enlarge on the subject, it constrains it.

scarcely...and it's wholly from a personal perspective.

With respect, mac, isn't everything we write here written from a personal perspective?

It does not enlarge on the subject, it constrains it.

How can seeking a context constrain a subject? Surely it opens the subject and makes it more accessible to others of a lateral viewpoint?

IMO it is actually a very important subject and one that needs to be debated.

Myarka.

With respect, mac, isn't everything we write here written from a personal perspective?

Well mine wasn't....

I summarised and categorised situations which have been described by others, at various times in various situations....

Had I given my own it may have been somewhat different but the idea was not to give a solitary or personal view, or indeed that of any single teacher, guide, master or mentor.

How can seeking a context constrain a subject? Surely it opens the subject and makes it more accessible to others of a lateral viewpoint?

IMO it is actually a very important subject and one that needs to be debated.

Myarka.

I had thought it was an important subject to. To the extent that I had previously sought personal ideas, individual experiences etc. in other threads.

Responses were few and I did what I could with those linking them to what I had observed, read, learned about etc. over a period of time.

I was hoping that repsonses would address weaknesses or inaccuracies in the original piece in order that more concise values might emerge, always trying to keep the whole piece as simple and accessible as possible for the maximum number of contributors.

So, mac, what you were seeking were comments on your definitions rather than discussion on the context of your post? If that's the case, possibly there are not that many people here who consider themselves able to discuss your themes. You seem to be the resident HP expert on spiritualism - and I truly don't mean that in any way sarcastically. You come across as someone who knows what they're talking about and as such I, for one, wouldn't dream of questioning your conclusions.
xx

Dear mac,

Does that explain my thinking better?

You clearly betray a strong attachment to your notions of other worldly beings contactable by those with special abilities. Your highlighting and underling my words in quotes, and the way you have reacted in your posts, suggests to me that my question has offended you. I did not wish to offend you.

Kinda lost the original thread topic, wouldn't you agree?

Where did the subject of 'psychics, sensitives and mediums' get to in all the above.....?:confused:

You highlighted this section of my quote after I made and effort to explain what you said was not clear in my first post. It was not meant to offend, it was meant as a question that asks you if I have answered your questions:

You say that the contents of my second post are:

...wholly from a personal perspective.

Perhaps I can illustrate the logic that is beyond personal here:

What there is we do not know. To know too much (to be deluded) is the greatest cause of suffering.

Now let us take, for example, Hitler. He knew all sorts of things of which he was quite sure. This lead him to act in truely terrible ways. He was deluded and his delusion was the cause of the suffering he brought upon himself and the world. Many others in history fit this category.

On a more mundane level it is self delusion that causes much suffering in our everyday lives. People believe many things without good cause that results in less dramatic forms of suffering but still it is suffering that is caused by delusion. I don't accept that this is merely a personal perspective.

It does not enlarge on the subject, it constrains it.

And in the context of this discussion it is clearly a very relevant consideration. It does not constrain the discussion at all, it opens it up.

I summarised and categorised situations which have been described by others, at various times in various situations....

Similar experiences reported by people who are subject to the same delusions is hysteria. Popularity of a false belief does not make it true.

There is only one way to guard yourself from the pain of having cherished beliefs challenged and that is to let go of self that is identified to the belief. And the way to do this is by developing qualities of kindness, understanding, patience and attentional focus. These wash away indignation, clarify understanding, and bring healing or at least alleviate unnecessary suffering. What these qualities sustain stands tested by them. Anything that does not foster these qualities or is challenged by them is going to be associated with some threat to a self construct. The vulnerability of which is an indication of its imaginary nature. These again are far from personal views of the way things work.

Norbu

So, mac, what you were seeking were comments on your definitions rather than discussion on the context of your post? If that's the case, possibly there are not that many people here who consider themselves able to discuss your themes. You seem to be the resident HP expert on spiritualism - and I truly don't mean that in any way sarcastically. You come across as someone who knows what they're talking about and as such I, for one, wouldn't dream of questioning your conclusions.
xx

Yes is the answer to your first question - I thought there would be enough in that one issue to keep folks going for quite some time...;)

And on a later point, I hope you will notice that although it's posted in this forum, there is only a single reference to Spiritualism - I'm aware of rules in some websites which forbid posting in more than one forum or it might have been appropriate for others, too....

Finally, I haven't drawn any conclusions in the discussion piece. It's just a set of simple definitions based on the criteria I've mentioned elsewhere here.

Finally, I haven't drawn any conclusions in the discussion piece. It's just a set of simple definitions based on the criteria I've mentioned elsewhere here.

OK, so I chose the wrong word....but the rest of my post remains valid. There just aren't that many people here, that I know of, who are that into spiritualism in any of its forms. Besides which, traditionally HP is very quiet at weekends when other people, who have lives (that's a joke BTW) have better things to do than sit in front of a computer screen.

Finally, does it really matter whether or not the replies precisely fit the parameters which you specify? Can't we just meet and communicate with - and maybe learn from - each other?

xxx

Norbu

"You clearly betray a strong attachment to your notions of other worldly beings contactable by those with special abilities. Your highlighting and underling my words in quotes, and the way you have reacted in your posts, suggests to me that my question has offended you. I did not wish to offend you."

On your first point...damn! 😀 🙂 I did not want anything of me to be in the piece and secondly I was trying to present a piece based on the criteria I've mentioned elsewhere here...

And I must apologise for my slapdash highlighting and underlining - that was simply to draw focus to the section to which I was making the response. I fully realised no offence was intended by yourself at any point - and none was given. 🙂

The Adolph Hitler analogy is surely flawed in that he did not KNOW at all - they were his beliefs and convictions but not based on fact or understanding...

What I meant by "constraint" was in departing from the subject of the thread to side and general issues.

OK, so I chose the wrong word....but the rest of my post remains valid. There just aren't that many people here, that I know of, who are that into spiritualism in any of its forms. Besides which, traditionally HP is very quiet at weekends when other people, who have lives (that's a joke BTW) have better things to do than sit in front of a computer screen.

Finally, does it really matter whether or not the replies precisely fit the parameters which you specify? Can't we just meet and communicate with - and maybe learn from - each other?

xxx

Again I am failing to communicate effectively...:(

I tried to explained why this thread was not specific to Spiritualism but why it's posted in this forum.

Maybe there are not many people here into Spiritualism but others read these forums too - and the rest of the piece might apply to themselves - sensitives, psychics and mediums are not specific to Spiritualism after all....

Naturally it goes without saying that folks wanting to will reply when they next visit - there's no hurry.

If you don't see it as important to stay on-topic then I guess I won't persuade you. But considering that there are numerous, general topics for casual meet-and-discuss situations, I'd rather hoped that this one would be discussed for its worth....maybe it doesn't have any?:(

Oh dear mac

Don't be :(, be :).

I know nothing....I'm off to the pub to watch the football. 😉

xxx

Oh dear mac

Don't be :(, be :).

I know nothing....I'm off to the pub to watch the football. 😉

xxx

whatever.....

After checking I realised I had posted in this, the Spirituality forum. There was only a single reference to "Spiritualism" in the whole, original piece.

Yet one contributor raised the Spiritualism issue specially...:rolleyes:

Dear Mac

And I must apologise for my slapdash highlighting and underlining - that was simply to draw focus to the section to which I was making the response. I fully realised no offence was intended by yourself at any point - and none was given. 🙂

No harm done,

Norbu

After checking I realised I had posted in this, the Spirituality forum. There was only a single reference to "Spiritualism" in the whole, original piece.

Yet one contributor raised the Spiritualism issue specially...:rolleyes:

Would that be me? I didn't even look, to be honest, I just assumed it was in Spiritualism as that is what it's about. Isn't it?

Would that be me? I didn't even look, to be honest, I just assumed it was in Spiritualism as that is what it's about. Isn't it?

yes to the first question and, no to the second...:rolleyes:

Spiritualism isn't spirituality (the forum's title) - if I had a dollar for every time I said that this past summer I'd have enough for a full tank of gas.

Shows how misunderstood the religion of Spiritualism is....perhaps it also shows what a poor communicator I am?

I give up...or maybe you're just winding me up, eh? Some folks do....those who don't (quote) "...have better things to do than sit in front of a computer screen" (that's a joke BTW) 😉 😀

Getting back to the original point of this thread... I agree. I like the idea of splitting definitions into three - mediums, sensitives and psychics. While many people will go through these stages, not all will and nor should they if it is not part of their development. While a person is in one particular stage (while perhaps experiencing aspects of others), then they will regard their spiritual path and awareness from that p.o.v. As they work on their inner spiritual understanding, then they will learn that they know very little! 🙂

Good building blocks to start with, Mac.

Getting back to the original point of this thread... I agree. I like the idea of splitting definitions into three - mediums, sensitives and psychics. While many people will go through these stages, not all will and nor should they if it is not part of their development. While a person is in one particular stage (while perhaps experiencing aspects of others), then they will regard their spiritual path and awareness from that p.o.v. As they work on their inner spiritual understanding, then they will learn that they know very little! 🙂

Good building blocks to start with, Mac.

Thanks for your comments and encouragement, Moonfeather. 🙂

I've found it interesting - and surprising - that nobody has proposed any other category of discernment or broadened the originals to include these other forms - yet!

I read many accounts of communication so I'd expected some contributors would reject the simplified descriptions and/or offer additional ones specific to their personal experience or understanding.