Monday, 17 May 2021

Claims of 'contact' with the dead

It seems to have been a constant factor of known history that particular living people have claimed to have some kind of direct and personal contact with specific dead people. This has various forms - including some that are perceptual such as having visions and/or conversations; automatic writing, Ouija boards and channeling; and direct mind-to-mind contact in trance states or dreams. 

Tribal peoples (especially hunter-gatherers) seem to have regarded contact between the living and the dead as both normal and significant; a necessary and valued part of everyday life. To the extent that 'human society' included both the living and the dead in a perpetual partnership and familial relationship.  


When the contact claimed is with a famous person, it may be linked with claims of special authority for the one who is claiming the contact - and this kind of 'vested interest' means that the subject is plagued with both charlatanry and self-deception. 

In other words, some people try to get fame or money from claiming a special relationship with some important dead person, while others make themselves feel important through a claimed relationship - just as people often 'name-drop' the famous living people they have met. 

Nonetheless, the ubiquity of the phenomenon through cultures and history - and the high stature of some of those who claim such contact - can reasonably sustain an assumption that contact with the dead really does happen. 

And if it does happen, then it is likely to be important. 

 

However, when the phenomenon is considered from the perspective that human consciousness has undergone a linear development through history; it can be seen that there has been a change in the nature of such claims. 

Contact with the dead seems to have begun as something that everybody did everyday, then to have become the preserve of an increasingly-professional and specialized priesthood - who might undergo training and initiation procedures, and might deploy formal methods of deliberately-induced deliberate trance states, then systems of divination.

When the spiritualist movement broke upon The West in the later 19th century (originating the USA) it used technologies such the Ouija board but also deep-trance mediums who were unconscious of the dead persons they were 'channeling'. 

Coming in the early 20th century, Rudolf Steiner announced and advocated that this era was ending, and that henceforth contact with the dead should happen in a different and fully conscious way - but he was never able to explain clearly just how this would happen - although he left many clues. yet he seems to have been right to the extent that the spiritualist-type contact has been in decline for a century - despite more and more extreme attempts to sustain it - for example by powerful hallucinogenic drugs. 


The situation now (in The West) is difficult to know - since it seems that Steiner was correct and the nature of contact with the dead has transformed as human consciousness has transformed; to the extent that contact may not be recognizable as such - may  be denied, or explained-away, or simply kept secret. 

And indeed, I think that in 2021 contact with the dead is meant to be - if not denied (because that would be dishonest) then kept 'secret' or not-talked-about; so that the actuality will not be contaminated or distorted by the actuality or accusations of status/ money seeking. 

This applies to all modern spiritual experiences; we should avoid the position of trying to defend them or of to convince other people about them. They, like 'everyday miracles', are best regarded as being For us specifically and personally - for our salvation and theosis; so that we may learn spiritually from the experiences of this life.


But in this general way; I would suggest that almost everybody could and should be having experiences of contact with the dead of some kind. And furthermore, that it is almost certain that someone of the dead is probably trying to establish contact with you at this moment. 

Who that person is is a personal matter - it could be a friend or relative, or it could be someone who was famous or from history - but I think that the initiative of genuine contact nearly always comes from the dead - and not by the desires of the living. 

It is, indeed, the desire of the living to contact specific dead persons (regardless of the needs and wants of those specific dead persons) that has led to much of the self- and -other-deception of spiritualism in its various forms. 


I think the way it works is that some person of the dead attempts to establish contact with some living person (for some reason that may never become clear) - and that the living person will become aware of this 'pressure' by the frequent, and perhaps inexplicable, recurrence of thoughts about the dead person pressing-upon their consciousness. 

I would also suggest that expectations of some kind of two-way, question and answer, call and response 'conversation' between the living and the dead be set aside. However it was in the past and in other places; that seems not to be possible or desirable at this stage of the evolution of human consciousness in The West.

Rather, I think the dead may communicate directly, thought-to-thought; but this may be unconscious (for example during sleep); and the living side of the interaction needs to bring this to consciousness and to understanding. 

Only when the living person has clarified and comprehended the thought-communication of the dead; can the dead person become aware of the living person's response. 

In other words, the interaction may be slow, simple, almost like yes-or-no in terms of information; and one-way at a time. 


The dead may also influence the motivation, interest, rewards of a living person - and contribute to discernment and creativity. 

A common example is from music; when some form of communion between a specific performer and a specific dead composer leads to an especially musically valuable interpretation of that composer's work. This seems to be very common - albeit it is not necessarily explicitly claimed to be a contact. For instance: in the case of John Lill and Beethoven it is thus claimed; in the case of Glenn Gould and JS Bach the link is powerful but implicit - but in both cases the results are objectively verifiable.    

The main potential value of such is for the living person himself; who experiences some enhancement of possibilities and the value of confirmation of the reality of the spiritual world and personal destiny.


10 comments:

  1. "But in this general way; I would suggest that almost everybody could and should be having experiences of contact with the dead of some kind. And furthermore, that it is almost certain that someone of the dead is probably trying to establish contact with you at this moment. "

    This seems like a recipe for being misled by the Evil One. How do you know what / whom you are in fact talking to?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So what are the risks of an unclean spirit trying to pretend it's somebody else?

    ReplyDelete
  3. All very well said Bruce! I think that spirit people would like to communicate with loved ones on earth but find they cannot get through to them, as if some barrier is blocking them. It is clear to me that sensitivity is necessary for spirit to get thru. An example would be at a gathering, party, etc. a spirit comes to me that is related to others in the group, husband, father, etc. The others present don't get the greeting but I do. Maybe just a name, a feeling, an image, however brief. No recognition on their part but it is clear to me even though they were closer in earth life than I was. However, to mention this at the moment would cause the group to go quiet. As an aside I would say that people with dementia, after death, require a long time to recover their ability to communicate, years maybe, as if they are recovering from their illness while in the spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Alex -

    There is no safe way to be a Christian. That is more apparent now than ever before.

    Avoiding one's spiritual destiny for fear of making mistakes is a sure path to damnation in these times of total-materialism, ever-more-totally controlled by Satan.

    So - there is no recipe. As with every decision we ever make in these mortal lives - we can only do our best, and repent when we make an error; and try again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @DJ - See my reply to Alex. But also, these are exciting and dangerous times - unavoidably so. We need to set aside fear and embrace the adventure and possibilities. The opposite of fear is love.

    @ag - Some very interesting observations there; especially wrt dementia. As always, we need to be focused on each person as an individual, rather than categories of diagnosis - but given that there will usually be a spiritual reason for a person's experience, and that can include illness - then dementia would be expected to have a meaning in mortal life. After that - well, it partly depends on what that person chooses, where he then goes...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Insightful post. These paragraphs towards the middle were especially clarifying:

    "It is, indeed, the desire of the living to contact specific dead persons (regardless of the needs and wants of those specific dead persons) that has led to much of the self- and -other-deception of spiritualism in its various forms.



    I think the way it works is that some person of the dead attempts to establish contact with some living person (for some reason that may never become clear) - and that the living person will become aware of this 'pressure' by the frequent, and perhaps inexplicable, recurrence of thoughts about the dead person pressing-upon their consciousness.

    I would also suggest that expectations of some kind of two-way, question and answer, call and response 'conversation' between the living and the dead be set aside. However it was in the past and in other places; that seems not to be possible or desirable at this stage of the evolution of human consciousness in The West."

    ReplyDelete
  7. wrt Bruce's response to Alex, "There is no safe way to be a Christian. That is more apparent now than ever before."

    So often when I express to Christians that one has to start to use one's owninner knowing and discernment, I get the response that it's dangerous to use one's own mind and free-will and discernment, because you can be easily misled.

    This leads to a sort of epistemological problem that is also tied to a metaphysical problem: why is it acceptable to trust the source of authority the more authoritarian Christian is telling me I must trust for my own safety? What is the source of the institution's authority? Is this authority merely worldly, or does it/did it have a divine source?
    What is the "safe" chocie? Aha, there is no safe choice! Why do so many Christians desire safety here in this plane of existence?
    What is really going on here?
    I sense that for some Christians, continuing to obey and have faith in their institutional authority is a type of test that they feel that that can pass, so it must be the right test to pass.
    A sort of "passing the buck as a virtue" philosophy.
    So many people feel utterly lost or unmoored by the idea that they must discern for themselves (well, with the help of God and Jesus and the saints and the dead, of course).

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Jacob - What I so disappointing about the traditionalist's/ religious authoritarian's safety-first-ism, is that since 2020 it has become very obviously un-safe to trust Christian leaders who have (as I posted recently) handed-over spiritual authority to a System (world government) that is explicitly atheist, anti-Christian, Leftist and aggressively implements an inverted morality.

    Things can't get much clearer than they are now - yet still the institutionalists remain self-blinded.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @NLR - Thanks. This is one of the areas in which Steiner's theories are very helpful - even though he did not himself live up to them in his spiritual practice, nor in the training he provided for his followers!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with your points here, based on my own personal experience and that of those who have confided in me.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. "Anonymous" comments are deleted without being read.