A Little About Science and Spirituality

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by bartholomew

You have been using the term "hierarchy". Usually that word refers to some organized (group) authority but What, exactly do you mean?




James

Hello there James - so sorry I missed this earlier as it was very short and I didn't see my name called out.

1)
Here's something straight off google and all these meaning apply, but they also lack something of common usage.

hi·er·ar·chy

/ˈhī(ə)ˌrärkē/

noun: hierarchy; plural noun: hierarchies

a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.

(7L: meaning, status and authority at any human level...i.e. group, societal, global, and by human perspectives also any graded, tiered, &/or progressive view of the "heavenly or spiritual", etc.

Status and authority may be considered in any of a number of ways, such that the spiritual experience of others may be viewed by humanity as superior to or above their own and therefore appear to position others in different places in a different sort of hierarchy...see the theology example for a historic parallel)

•the upper echelons of a hierarchical system; those in authority.
noun: the hierarchy

"the magazine was read quite widely even by some of the hierarchy"

•an arrangement or classification of things according to relative importance or inclusiveness.
"a taxonomic hierarchy of phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species"

•the clergy of the Catholic or Episcopal Church; the religious authorities.
noun: the hierarchy

•Theology
the traditional system of orders of angels and other heavenly beings.

Here are some common usage examples cited at the Cambridge Dictionary page on "hierarchy" from round the web...all these meanings/uses also apply:

I particularly wish to emphasise the inclusion of the divergent waste hierarchy.
From Europarl Parallel Corpus - English 

We are thus led to construct a hierarchy.
From Wikipedia 

The belief in the importance of details also suggests the new hierarchy.
From Wikipedia 

A hierarchy consists of a preorder defined on a set.
From Wikipedia 

To further reduce the network size, we can exploit the hierarchy in the power distribution models.
From Wikipedia 

We cannot create a hierarchy of suffering, hunger or oppression.
From Europarl Parallel Corpus - English 

Thirdly, we must defend the principle of a hierarchy of norms.
From Europarl Parallel Corpus - English 

Thinking in terms of a hierarchy of fundamental rights is a trap which we should avoid.
From Europarl Parallel Corpus - English 

According to mythology, the country was going through a social restructuring and adopting the strict social hierarchy system of castes.
From Wikipedia 

Only the latter hypothesis is coherent with the hierarchy of the institutions.
From Europarl Parallel Corpus - English 

Indeed, there can be no hierarchy among discriminations.
From Europarl Parallel Corpus - English 

Finally, this text is also important because it provides a sketch of the emerging church hierarchy.
From Wikipedia 

The conflict could be resolved by collapsing the hierarchy of spiritual government and material government in favour of matter.
From Wikipedia 

Liberals were often labeled anarchists by monarchists, even though they did not call for the abolition of hierarchy.
From Wikipedia

The first several examples provide a good sense of part of what I intended, which is that our conceptualisation of a process often seems to us to suggest not just an unfolding or a natural progression....

...but ALSO a hierarchy of development...in which there is a conferred or implicit superiority of later "stages" or of end state(s), to the point of being broadly assumed (by those who espouse the perspective) as a foundational aspect or fact of the topic at hand. Perhaps this makes sense simply for working purposes if we're talking about certain very limited, material processes involving inanimate states and so forth...

But in terms of humanity, society and spirituality it tends to be heavily overlaid with social bias and ideology going back to the dawn of history.
This broad assumption of the preferential stages or states of hierarchy are assumptions we have made, and about hierarchies we have conceived and overlaid onto our social reality. So, very often our thinking reflects an assumption of separation, hierarchy, and a judgment of preference and superiority belonging to "higher" or "more advanced" states or stages or rungs.

Very often, this causes us to likewise confer some level of authority upon them (.e.g., "I look to God and/or my guides to intervene & give me clear signs to guide my decisions"...&/or somehow provide certainty, abrogate my free will, and otherwise absolve me of ownership for my decisions -- by virtue of their greater wisdom and authority). IMO this greater wisdom & power is exactly why Source/messengers/guides won't make your decisions for you nor tell you what to do/relieve you of ownership...but this is the level of feedback that many seek when they are dealing with Spirit in terms of human hierarchy and its implicit and explicit conferred states of authority and superiority.

This mode or ingrained tendency of conflating development with hierarchy is almost entirely due to our level of human development (and similar others) -- because it is literally all we've known for millennia and we have likewise overlaid our hierarchical thinking with a millennia of various supportive ideologies.

I hope I've been a bit more clear now & if not, please do let me know.
Peace & blessings
7L

Originally Posted by Busby

Having read quickly through the above discussions and philosophies Allan Kardec's 'The Book of Spirits' came constantly to mind. It may not offer the same framework for discussions about the 'details' of 'spirituality' but basically the background is similar. A sort of progressive Theosophy. All is possible.
However on my part I did search in vain for the word Imagination in the very lively discussions. Indeed I did find it, once, but in a very minor placing. For me, suiting my present personal needs, this word is the most important of all words. I think we just don't understand it and don't realise how we are missing out on the importance of the role it plays in life - in each life.

We are in this world. Actually it is a very odd place - actually it - our world - just cannot be - nor can it be that we are in a universe of such size and complexity for a few decades and then just disappear without any explanation while residing in what we call the present.

What do we know? Well if we do away with all the stuff we can find every day about religion, beliefs, philosophies, and all the rest we are left with nothing but us, each of us being made of more or less the same stuffs on the same planet. Some of us are rich, handsome, beautiful, intelligent whilst some of us are ugly, poor, of low intellect and low intelligence. Then there are a host of other variances too. Nationality, race, culture, desires, achievements, talents, preferences, hates, etc., all of which are valid and all of which have their place in 'the scheme of things'. What we all have is a body and a mind. It's here that many people will say 'yes, but we have a soul too'. If you ask 8 billion people what a soul is they'll all give you a different answer - just as they will if you ask them what god is. My assumption is that we don't have a soul. But we imagine we do - according to what we imagine.

So the one common factor is that we each have a body made of matter and a mind made of - made of what...?

Let me get to my point. Here in this room where I am sitting everything has been made by man. London and Berlin have been made by man. The A380 aeroplane which flies having a weight of 100 tons has been made by man and his/her imagination. When I look through the window I see trees and grass. Not made by man. So we live in two sorts of worlds. That world outside, the one which gave us life, exists without us having to do anything, we simply partake of it. The world in which we live corresponds to the room I'm in and it is necessary to be constantly busy in this world. Busy by using my imagination. A world somewhat separate from that which 'nature' has created.

So, to keep it short and in my opinion, we do not realise the immense role that our imaginations play in our existences. If we exchange the word 'illusion' for 'imagination' perhaps we get nearer to this thing we call 'truth'. If we are mind and matter and can do away with 'spiritual realms' by replacing the 'realms' with 'imagination' we may understand that we have everything we need now and we don't need either a macro or a micro cosmos. We do, so to speak, nestle in the lap of the creator taking part in one super dream-

Interesting summation. Keywords might be imagination and truth. Both seem to require abstract mind in order to be apparent.

Originally Posted by linen53

Thank you for responding so swiftly. I was not able to respond because I was exposed to something I am allergic to and it's taken me a few days to recover. Not looking for sympathy, just explaining why.

Yes, I can see stating "a part of source" could be interpreted as a separation. I don't interpret it that way; I will just move on.

I do know that my knowledge is a drop in the bucket compared to what is awaiting me once I have completed this lifetime. I do believe many new doors will be opened to me because many new doors have been opened to me in this lifetime, breaking barriers previously out of reach to me.

Thank you for your concern; I am careful and always check the 'within' part of me before taking on new knowings. It it doesn't feel right it gets dumped; if there is a possibility of sustenance (a maybe), it goes on a shelf until more maturity or knowledge is acquired.

I do know we go through stages of learning. You have to learn the alphabet before you can learn to read. Some things I read about I chalk up to that theory.

I've heard before that our thoughts and imagination creates in reality on another plane before so that's twice I've heard that (one of those things on a shelf).

I lived my earlier years in fear. Fear of everything. If there wasn't something to fear, I would create something. A lot of that fear has been addressed by a whole list of questions that have been answered in my life about my life. I remember the first time I was able to sit through a scary movie without having to turn it off due to fear. It was exhilarating! I still watch that movie from time to time to re-create that joyful feeling.

Those fears were placed in me by others to keep me in a helpless state. Thankfully it didn't last my entire life and I was able to get past it. But I see other people who are stuck in a cycle of fears. I can only feel compassion for them.

I am aware of the talk of spiritual wars have been mentioned in the bible. I do not read the bible anymore because it has been watered down to the point that most of the original text has been altered. It's like reading a interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation. Nuggets here and there but long deserts of text in between.

As far as spiritual wars, maybe we are not to dwell on those things at this time. We are in no position to influence those wars and are merely being protected to continue our growing up process. I just can't imagine that much evil once the physical living is over and the superior knowledge that we have access on the Other Side of incarnation will reveal. Why fight unconditional love? Why fight cooperation? Why fight kindness? Why fight abundance?

Oh how wonderful. I am sure you and Bartholomew will have a very long conversation. I smile when I imagine in my mind, the two of you sitting together.

I have always felt the same about Adolph Hitler. Though in other threads others debase the man and think he needs to be put into the darkest corner of the universe, I just see him as a very broken person, just like we all are or have been at one time or another.

Interesting statement in response. War in heaven? I used to wonder how such strange sounding language could be considered by thinking people. Then I realized that those who related such stories long ago had no idea of space travel. They automatically thought that anything at a distance from our world was "heaven". Rather than subscribe to violence on such a scale being possible in higher realms, until I know better I will allow that that there were, are still are, other more advanced human beings who have been involved with our planet for a very long time. If this is the case, if these folks are more advanced while yet retaining a degree of fallibility one could easily see that they might at times disagree amongst themselves even to the point of conflict. I believe though that it is more likely that at some time one group disagree with another to the point of being disobedient thus creating a divide or splitting up, one group opposed to another. Such events could easily be called "wars" by some observer here on Earth. Just because we are more evolved doesn't mean we have reached perfection.

I believe that it was the activities of some of these that were responsible for those two we call Adam and Eve being present on our planet in a time when only less advanced humans were running around. This handily explains how, exactly, Cain was able to go to "the land of Nod" to find a wife. Central to this story is the idea of a falling away from "god's" designed purpose. This language, I believe, was used by the story teller because he was unable to imagine that flesh and blood more advanced humans from some other world could be right here on Earth doing things, interacting with Earth humans according to a plan. They had to be of God. If there was a design it had to be God's. It just had to be. So.... when I think of the old accounts of war in heaven I am more and more certain that there was an elemental disagreement about what was planned by these off world colonists for the Earth "outpost" which resulted in the reported "banishment from Eden". etc etc....

There are other tie ins that seem to reinforce this story line. I believe that all this happened about 200,000 years ago in roughly the area which is now southern Iraq.

James

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello there James - so sorry I missed this earlier as it was very short and I didn't see my name called out.

1)
Here's something straight off google and all these meaning apply, but they also lack something of common usage.



Here are some common usage examples cited at the Cambridge Dictionary page on "hierarchy" from round the web...all these meanings/uses also apply:



The first several examples provide a good sense of part of what I intended, which is that our conceptualisation of a process often seems to us to suggest not just an unfolding or a natural progression....

...but ALSO a hierarchy of development...in which there is a conferred or implicit superiority of later "stages" or of end state(s), to the point of being broadly assumed (by those who espouse the perspective) as a foundational aspect or fact of the topic at hand. Perhaps this makes sense simply for working purposes if we're talking about certain very limited, material processes involving inanimate states and so forth...

But in terms of humanity, society and spirituality it tends to be heavily overlaid with social bias and ideology going back to the dawn of history.
This broad assumption of the preferential stages or states of hierarchy are assumptions we have made, and about hierarchies we have conceived and overlaid onto our social reality. So, very often our thinking reflects an assumption of separation, hierarchy, and a judgment of preference and superiority belonging to "higher" or "more advanced" states or stages or rungs.

Very often, this causes us to likewise confer some level of authority upon them (.e.g., "I look to God and/or my guides to intervene & give me clear signs to guide my decisions"...&/or somehow provide certainty, abrogate my free will, and otherwise absolve me of ownership for my decisions -- by virtue of their greater wisdom and authority). IMO this greater wisdom & power is exactly why Source/messengers/guides won't make your decisions for you nor tell you what to do/relieve you of ownership...but this is the level of feedback that many seek when they are dealing with Spirit in terms of human hierarchy and its implicit and explicit conferred states of authority and superiority.

This mode or ingrained tendency of conflating development with hierarchy is almost entirely due to our level of human development (and similar others) -- because it is literally all we've known for millennia and we have likewise overlaid our hierarchical thinking with a millennia of various supportive ideologies.

I hope I've been a bit more clear now & if not, please do let me know.
Peace & blessings
7L

All that just to explain why you used a certain word? Heavens! You remind me of me. ha ha

[SaturninePluto]

I personally don't care much for the hierarchy I see many spiritualists subscribe to much either.

But when all is said and done, this itself will not change anyone's mind, nor is it in my ability or want to change anyone's personal thoughts on Guides, angels, and how they work anyway.

It is only my opinion, that such hierarchies do not exist, and opinions amount to absolute squat. Others do not care to hear my opinion, or perspective. I find the human state to be utterly self absorbed.

As far as spirit guides go, I recently posted a topic in the guides section about some sort of spirit I've been seeing. My answers to my questions, were not real attempts at an answer, if anyone actually took the time to read what I had said, before making personal judgments based on their opinion.

I have come to the very sound sane conclusions that spirit guides do not exist.

I also do not believe in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th what have you dimension ideas.

I also do not think if guides did exist they would be these faultless beings whom are utterly good and angelic and whom hold nothing but a smile on their face, and I thank God daily for my sanity. A guide with a constant smile- to me is nothing short of a false facade.

A charade if you will, perpetuating the nagging idea that such beings are the epitome of perfect, and we mere mortals are some lesser subjects that need ever so badly to ascend.

I also don't believe for one moment in ascension.

Or ascended masters.

One may wonder why it is I am here, and all I could say is do I have to believe in all of the above to be a spiritual Human to begin with?


So while I do not care for any of these very things, still as a spiritual human being I realize it is not my place to question those whom do. I'd only do that if I wanted to argue, and why would anyone actually want to do that?

The reason I am considering as of late due to my mental processes, are those whom like to argue have an insatiable need to be right. I feel this, this need to be right, stems from a feeling of lack somehow.

Even if one is right about something, why isn't knowing this oneself enough?

We must have to go to tell this fact to others? And this leads me to believe one is looking for attention. Or one is looking for something.

Science and spirituality for me are two very real things. In my view they both have a place. I am not the type of individual to deny what science has proven. As well it just so happens I do believe in something more, and am not an atheist.

I actually do not find either science or spirituality that difficult of a combination to hold my faith in.

Or to say, I never truly found either to be in opposition.

And for the record?

I honestly don't care for Alice Bailey, much either.

Just food for thought, and my perspective. Or opinion, if you all would allow.

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

I personally don't care much for the hierarchy I see many spiritualists subscribe to much either.

But when all is said and done, this itself will not change anyone's mind, nor is it in my ability or want to change anyone's personal thoughts on Guides, angels, and how they work anyway.

It is only my opinion, that such hierarchies do not exist, and opinions amount to absolute squat. Others do not care to hear my opinion, or perspective. I find the human state to be utterly self absorbed.

As far as spirit guides go, I recently posted a topic in the guides section about some sort of spirit I've been seeing. My answers to my questions, were not real attempts at an answer, if anyone actually took the time to read what I had said, before making personal judgments based on their opinion.

I have come to the very sound sane conclusions that spirit guides do not exist.

I also do not believe in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th what have you dimension ideas.

I also do not think if guides did exist they would be these faultless beings whom are utterly good and angelic and whom hold nothing but a smile on their face, and I thank God daily for my sanity. A guide with a constant smile- to me is nothing short of a false facade.

A charade if you will, perpetuating the nagging idea that such beings are the epitome of perfect, and we mere mortals are some lesser subjects that need ever so badly to ascend.

I also don't believe for one moment in ascension.

Or ascended masters.

One may wonder why it is I am here, and all I could say is do I have to believe in all of the above to be a spiritual Human to begin with?


So while I do not care for any of these very things, still as a spiritual human being I realize it is not my place to question those whom do. I'd only do that if I wanted to argue, and why would anyone actually want to do that?

The reason I am considering as of late due to my mental processes, are those whom like to argue have an insatiable need to be right. I feel this, this need to be right, stems from a feeling of lack somehow.

Even if one is right about something, why isn't knowing this oneself enough?

We must have to go to tell this fact to others? And this leads me to believe one is looking for attention. Or one is looking for something.

Science and spirituality for me are two very real things. In my view they both have a place. I am not the type of individual to deny what science has proven. As well it just so happens I do believe in something more, and am not an atheist.

I actually do not find either science or spirituality that difficult of a combination to hold my faith in.

Or to say, I never truly found either to be in opposition.

And for the record?

I honestly don't care for Alice Bailey, much either.

Just food for thought, and my perspective. Or opinion, if you all would allow.

A truly brilliant post. Unfettered and honest. My personal opinion is that the best approach to whatever spirituality is is achieved when we can manage to set aside all of the usual glamorous expectations. Why, indeed, should any of us subscribe to the beliefs of others especially when we sense they might well be transitory?

As for guides I've always maintained that they are just the souls of friends of ours who are a bit more advanced. That's all. No grand and glorious advanced beings. And are they infallible? No. Not by a long shot. They are no more perfect than any of our parents were/are. They just have a little more wisdom than we do and can see a bit clearer because they are a little older and are perhaps unencumbered by a physical lower mind.

From the vantage point which you occupy wonderful insights will be available. Please continue to contribute in this way.

I have what I believe is a good relationship with my buddy Bart. Is it all in my lower brain consciousness? Well if it is then so be it. Until I know for sure I'm content.

James (this time without Bartholomew)

[SaturninePluto]

Posted by Bartholomew


I have what I believe is a good relationship with my buddy Bart. Is it all in my lower brain consciousness? Well if it is then so be it. Until I know for sure I'm content.

That too is what truly matters as well, I feel.

So long as you, or anyone else is content with what it is they believe, and those beliefs are in no way forced upon others.

In the older time periods as has been documented, such force was usually by way of violence. In places still this remains a truth.

Not only by religious efforts either. This violence has been going on long and well before any of the Abrahamic religions came to be.

I feel what matters is so long as one is happy in their own beliefs, and if that is such the case, there actually would not be a need for violence in the way it has come about.

Those happy enough in their own convictions, would not have a need for force in the first place.

I wonder Bartholomew, if you have the time could you offer a bit of insight on my most recent and last post in the guides forum? I am currently at a loss as to how to proceed exactly with what I've written I have been experiencing there.

Again only if you find time, and are drawn.

Thank you for the topic James,

It has been well worth the read, your words, and those of others.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by bartholomew

All that just to explain why you used a certain word? Heavens! You remind me of me. ha ha

Hello James.
Who is "you" here? Do you mean me, 7L? Just making sure...hahaha.

Well, if so, let me clarify that "All that" was me being courteous and responding to your request.
You asked me to explain, because as stated, you were uncertain of my use of the word hierarchy.

However, if you are going to mock my sincere response to your request as "all that" "just to explain", then "heavens!", simply don't ask in the first place
You ask me to explain according to me, and then it has to be a certain way according to you or else you make fun???

TBH, my first response was...what? He doesn't understand a range of common usage for the word hierarchy? That's odd.
And then...well, can't he look it up for himself and momentarily ponder & absorb the range of common usage for the word?

After all, your prior post was terse and did not acknowledge me by name. Nor was there any thanks for my thoughtful response, nor any of that. It did not seem particularly conversational in its phrasing of the stated question, no asking if I could please share my thoughts etc.

But then my compassion directed me to consider that perhaps you could not parse out what I meant, or perhaps it was difficult for any of a number of reasons. So I gave you the background, fully and sincerely.

Now...if you choose to mock my sincere response, that's on you and that's your choice.
But IMO that's not the right-aligned choice.

Also, my 2ps...if I were you -- and I would make the same recommendation to anyone -- before you or anyone respond, it's always wise to address the person by name/username and double check your words to be certain they are kind and courteous, even if you must bring something to another's attention.

Often I find the combo of addressing others by name/username and checking your words for both intent and content both prevents a lot of snide, terse, interrogatory, demanding, or harsh speech. So I wanted to share in case that's a helpful tip you could use.

Peace & blessings
7L

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello James.
Who is "you" here? Do you mean me, 7L? Just making sure...hahaha.

Well, if so, let me clarify that "All that" was me being courteous and responding to your request.
You asked me to explain, because as stated, you were uncertain of my use of the word hierarchy.

However, if you are going to mock my sincere response to your request as "all that" "just to explain", then "heavens!", simply don't ask in the first place
You ask me to explain according to me, and then it has to be a certain way according to you or else you make fun???

TBH, my first response was...what? He doesn't understand a range of common usage for the word hierarchy? That's odd.
And then...well, can't he look it up for himself and momentarily ponder & absorb the range of common usage for the word?

After all, your prior post was terse and did not acknowledge me by name. Nor was there any thanks for my thoughtful response, nor any of that. It did not seem particularly conversational in its phrasing of the stated question, no asking if I could please share my thoughts etc.

But then my compassion directed me to consider that perhaps you could not parse out what I meant, or perhaps it was difficult for any of a number of reasons. So I gave you the background, fully and sincerely.

Now...if you choose to mock my sincere response, that's on you and that's your choice.
But IMO that's not the right-aligned choice.

Also, my 2ps...if I were you -- and I would make the same recommendation to anyone -- before you or anyone respond, it's always wise to address the person by name/username and double check your words to be certain they are kind and courteous, even if you must bring something to another's attention.

Often I find the combo of addressing others by name/username and checking your words for both intent and content both prevents a lot of snide, terse, interrogatory, demanding, or harsh speech. So I wanted to share in case that's a helpful tip you could use.

Peace & blessings
7L

Thank you for your very informative response. Please don't worry about mere words. I may make queries but I make no demands on others regarding expressiveness and, I never take offense.

Blessings

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

I wonder Bartholomew, if you have the time could you offer a bit of insight on my most recent and last post in the guides forum? I am currently at a loss as to how to proceed exactly with what I've written I have been experiencing there.

Questions if you will allow?
1. What if one does not believe in spirit guides? In the sense that most spiritual encounters one has had have not been as benign as this sounds?

It is so often much better for the woman or man to not believe in such things. The problem with guides is that the average person might, might, might come to depend on them too much forgetting that the challenge of living is best met when we achieve by ourselves. Consider the businessperson who is responsible for making decisions which will impact the daily lives of thousands of others. They apply their minds. Solutions usually in the form of course changes are thought of. Did they meditate and ask their guides for help? Probably not. Did their guides really help them? Probably not. When a person is adequately focused in life there is no need to have some guide close by. We really seldom need them and depending on them all the time is often not such a good idea. Typically guides show up in times of stress or duress. They do, after all, have other things to do too.


2. What if one realizes angels for what they are, inhuman and does not necessarily believe them to be as beings of ultimate good and love and light as mass media would have one believe?

My personal view is that the legends of angels who help or guide is a remnant from the far gone days when off worlders worked overtly here on Earth concerned with providing guidance to the Earth humans of the times. Because they came from the sky they were depicted having wings and given special status. The gods of the times were those who directed the angels. Are they high spiritual beings just because they came from Sirius? Think about it. More likely they are from a more advanced race of beings, probably post human sorts, but this does not make them high spiritual entities.

The whole business of guides is given too much importance. They do exist. There is nothing dramatically special about them (being humans just like us but a bit more "seasoned") but they watch more than they interact. It is my opinion based on experience with others that most talk of guides is really representative of an astral plane form which, when connected with, provides a degree of solace.

3. More importantly what if one simply does not need this type of assistance, is there even a choice? What if one chooses not to be assisted by a guide?

Good. To learn to be self sufficient is the best possible thing that can happen. Take charge! Throw away dependencies! Free yourself! Good! This is precisely what guides what of us. choice? Yes there is a choice. Just sit quietly and say "thanks but I can manage" and they'll be happy to pull back. There are many who really do need what guides offer. Let these good folk receive as they require.

A typical guide is just a human being like us. He or she cares for a few others who just happen to be less evolved then they are. Nothing mystical about what they do. If they draw near and see in an aura that everything is fine they leave. This is the way they operate. These souls do have other responsibilities as well. And they have to be concerned with their own evolution too. Guiding is like a collateral duty.

Something else here. Our own souls may well be guides to others whether or not they are presently incarnated. Would we, the persons, know about it? Again look at the aura for an answer. Consider this.... Look again at your reading given in March of 17. Note the part where the relationship between heart and mind is spoken of. This information is derived directly from your aura. At a certain point whereat a human being no longer needs attentions of the guide he or she can be said to have achieved. See? Now what is there for a guide to do? Go help others who have not yet come so far. May I ask that you re read your reading?

4. Finally and importantly still, what if one so chooses to put their faith in their selves ( Yes this includes the higher self as one realizes such a part of one's self exists) and in God? What if essentially that is all I need?

These points have already been addressed. Nothing can make a guide happier than to see their friend achieving all by themselves. For a guide this is a great reward. Remember here that guides are just like us except a little more advanced. Their auras tell their stories. Our auras tell ours. All of us are, at times, either incarnate or discarnate. I would say more if this were a PM. We are on the regular forum thread though so there are privacy concerns.

It IS all you need!!! The next step is for your soul to be guide to others.

Learn spiritual discrimination. Decide for yourself what is real and what is not.


Just a few questions I thought I'd ask while I'm online.

Blessings.

James/Bartholomew