still working it

Originally Posted by Guillaume

So, to me, there could be mediums that haven't developed many other psychic abilities, and psychic people that developed many but not mediumship.

It's simply a matter of focus, and often mediumship has the attachment of status - psychic can be seen as 'lesser'. All mediums are psychic but not all psychics are mediums.

And if you were a medium you'd know how much practice that can take.

Originally Posted by Guillaume

In the Eastern traditions, the development of samadhi (single point concentration) comes with the development of psychic abilities.

You need to spend some time getting this straight because it's all over the shop. To keep it very simple, psychic is a 'sixth sense' and as much intuition-related as anything else. Samadhi is consciousness 'beyond' Maya or the differentiated consciousness of the ego/Ahamkara, not concentration. Samadhi is your liberation but since there was a lot of cross=pollination, the Christians probably plagiarised it. They were good at that.

I've noticed this across a couple of threads, that you're mixing up some pretty disparate things - the thread on Christianity, liberation and mediumship being a case in point. Talking of which, clairsentience/cognizance (clear knowing) is on a par with the Essene Gnosis, and Jesus was a Nazorean Essene.

'Channelling' the living is psychic energies, mediumship is concerned with those who have passed over.

As to the science of psychic abilities, nobody is sure but so far but IMHO, the most likely candidate is the quantum-capable micro-tubules in the brain, and some would say psychic abilities are merely becoming more conscious of what is normally 'discarded' by the brain - becoming more conscious of what the unconscious processes but doesn't spit out. As to whether or not they are a gift or a curse is down to the individual.

Originally Posted by bobjob

I don't understand what you mean by channeling living peoplel

I didn't understand that either, since mediumship is concerned with two-way communication with those who have passed over. 'Channelling' is also known as 'downloading' because it's a one-way flow, it's a straightforward dumping of information that some Spiritual teachers - most notably Matt Khan - receive their teachings/info from. 'Technically' it's not mediumship.

[Guillaume]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Samadhi is consciousness 'beyond' Maya or the differentiated consciousness of the ego/Ahamkara, not concentration.

Samadhi is single-pointed concentration.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/...dhi/index.html

Then yes, it's consciousness beyond Maya, but that's one of the realizations.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I've noticed this across a couple of threads, that you're mixing up some pretty disparate things - the thread on Christianity, liberation and mediumship being a case in point.

I was trying to make sense of an experience. But yes, I "mix up" in your point of view, and in mine you are too much in duality.

'Channelling' the living is psychic energies, mediumship is concerned with those who have passed over.

It depends on the definition of mediumship.
But I've never had any reason to contact people who passed over, nor do I see any line that separates the spirit of the living and the spirit of the people who passed over.

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by Guillaume

I can do readings for people. If I focus on someone who is willing to share, I can read them. But I never do it, or just for fun once in while.

Let's work this together, should we?

1. When you say you "....do readings for people", exactly what does that mean to you?

2. When you say "I read them." exactly what are you doing when you read them?

In both the above statements I hear 'psychic reading'. Is that what you're carrying out on them, a psychic reading?

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by Guillaume

You need to understand it, especially if your specialty is mediumship! This is very scientific.

May I please be the judge of what I need to understand? As I remarked earlier my speciality is mediumship but in your references I ain't seeing it. And I am still searching for a science aspect - I can't see one yet.

In the Eastern traditions, the development of samadhi (single point concentration) comes with the development of psychic abilities. It just happens, it has been described in sutras, commented etc etc, and anyone can do it (maybe not in this life, but the next or the next).

It just happens? hmmmmm

So psychic abilities are nothing supernatural, they are not a gift, they are not a belief, they develop naturally if we work out our attention and energy.

As you quoted my posting and then responded to what I'd 'said' I want to make it clear that I had not suggested that psychic attributes are supernatural, not a gift etcetera.

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by Guillaume

I was trying to make sense of an experience. But yes, I "mix up" in your point of view, and in mine you are too much in duality. .

You also "mix up" from my point of view too.

It depends on the definition of mediumship.

Agreed - some individuals appear to have no clear understanding WHY mediumship is different from everything else that often gets lumped in with it.

But I've never had any reason to contact people who passed over, nor do I see any line that separates the spirit of the living and the spirit of the people who passed over.

As you say you have "...never had any reason to contact people who have passed over....." you are not a medium. Mediums do have that need on behalf of seekers who come for help.

Going further then, there is no line separating spirits involved in animating bodies and spirits who are not and I don't recall anyone saying there was such a line. What does differentiate their roles, however, is that the former are experiencing incarnate lives and the latter are not. If that's not enough to distinguish one group of spirits from the other I don't know what would be.

[ThatMan]

I was once asked in real life by someone who is deep in the occult and not into the good things that if I can read people's minds. In that moment I got even more proof of what I've been experiencing being real and my confidence went to the sky.

Anyway, I said no, I will not do something like that, it's not good.

[Guillaume]

Originally Posted by bobjob

1. When you say you "....do readings for people", exactly what does that mean to you?
2. When you say "I read them." exactly what are you doing when you read them?

1. It means I tell what people want / need / have to hear, I'm a messenger.
2. I concentrate and wait for visions, or sometimes it comes as a download from above when doing it remotely. In real life it's easier, words just come up naturally during the conversation.

[Guillaume]

Originally Posted by bobjob

You also "mix up" from my point of view too.

You are also too much in duality for me :)

As you say you have "...never had any reason to contact people who have passed over....." you are not a medium. Mediums do have that need on behalf of seekers who come for help.

People often come to me spontaneously so that I help them, it has always been the case.
Not for doing readings or anything like that, at least until now.