Spirit Guides - what are they?


Reaction score
Take a look at spiritualminded.blogspot.com for some examples of spirit guides, or inner wise guides. There is The Visionary, Michael, guide to the Field of Illusions, and Ramurabi, the Faithful Brother.

Are these just the products of a vivid imagination?
Are they really 'out there'?
Are they something else?
How do we know?

I think Spirit Guides come in all sizes, shapes, and forms ... with varying degrees of wisdom, as well as greater & lesser capacities to provide guidance, or even instruction. The Greatest of all of Whom and which I am aware, are the Masters of the Wisdom (as they are often referred to among esotericists).

From an esoteric Christian point of view, these are Christ and His Church ... Christ and His Eldest Disciples, though not necessarily those of 2000 years ago. Buddhists call them Nirmanakayas, and they can consist of arhats, Adepts, or even Bodhisattvas.

Varying grades of disciples, in every country, comprised of people of all religions and even of no particular religious orientation ... serve Humanity, and in so doing, serve the Masters. This can involve assisting people with the transition - through death - to the Buddhist bardo, or the astral plane. Or it may involve instruction, while the advanced disciple is out of the body, to those of lesser degree, who are likewise attending "Night Class."

I am of the opinion that there are Devas, or Angels, who also serve as Spirit Guides to Humanity, and that one class of Deva is also intimately and increasingly involved in assisting us with healing work. They can sometimes be found at large hospitals, inspiring doctors & caregivers, and helping those who are ready to cross over to do so with dignity, peace and understanding.

There are also members of other Humanities, if as yet in small numbers, who perhaps serve as spirit guides, as they may be able to provide a unique perspective which most of us have as yet not attained. Some of these are simply kindred souls, also in incarnation, yet advanced on life's path, and therefore able to soar in the spirit ... once freed from the body at night. Others perhaps are not in incarnation, yet serve as the Nirmanakayas do, from the higher planes.

Socarates spoke of the daimon, or daimonion, which did not advise him in the positive, but rather, indicated what not to do, thus warning him of danger. This is, surely, our own voice of conscience, and evidence enough that the Divine dwells within us (already), and is not strictly without - or altogether transcendent.

I believe it is our voice of conscience, the still, small voice, which can - at the right moment - introduce us to our overshadowing Soul ... that Spiritual Being Whom and which is truly our `Inner God.' What a pity that this pearl of Wisdom is altogether missed by those who have been taught only that god is a transcendent voice in the sky ... when all along, the Soul has been here, with us, whispering - and awaiting for us to recognize, to understand, and to become still, knowing G-d.

Spirit Guides may be as close to us, and as kindred, as our own family members, having recently passed (over) ... yet have also come into a greater measure of the Wisdom, now that they are freed from the maya of the physical world. Not enlightened, but much more aware of the Light that surrounds us, and is within us, they can communicate to us at night, or even in a moment of crisis, while yet they traverse the middle & upper astral regions.

A Spirit guide may also be a thought-form, an artificially constructed entity, known in Theosophical Teachings as a `John King.' Employed by the Masters, these are not beings in the same sense we are, yet they do have an existence of their own, and they do serve a Higher purpose, even as we are learning to (by being messengers for the Masters).

We can only truly discern whether or not we in touch with a suitable spirit guide by a certain degree of trial & error. Yet if approach the spirit realm with a pure heart, a still mind, and the intent to Serve the soul and Masters ... I have utmost confidence that we cannot go wrong. For even if we do, every error is a lesson, and next time we are likely to be more careful, and to attune ourselves more closely - to the voice of the Soul.

I have been taught that if we turn to the Soul, which is within, we have nought to fear ... and we may rest assured, 100%, that we are proceeding in the right direction. It is only when we dabble, or rush in where angels fear to tread (into the astral world, seeking phenomena, seeking thrills), that we are likely to get into trouble.

So many people say a few words to this effect, then proceed to close the door to the hundreds - even thousands - of avenues to Spirit, or to spiritual Service. The Soul is within us all; it is up to each of us to discover in precisely what way we can come to know it.

Love and Light,

personally I think the whole concept of spirit guides is a con... ooh, isnt it lovely to think the world is a positive place, filled with higher beings who hang around in the ether just to help us... how fortunate we are... oh, what a shame I am not enlightened enough to be able to see them for myself...

...u have to be a sandwhich short of a picnic to fall for this trash, the pseudowisdom of con merchants, a crappy mix of angelic beings meets with transcendental spiritual otherworldy themes... ooh, yes, lets have another tier in the hierarchy to seperate man from God...

yet if God is so powerful and great, why does he get all these simpering archangels and nature spirits to do his bidding? Why doesn't he speak to u himself instead? Ahh, they say, God cannot do it all alone, but if God cannot, then he is not omnipotent after all, and if he isnt omnipotent, he isnt God...

have I ever seen a spirit guide? no... if ppl are that deluded they are seeing little fairies and angels and the ghosts of dead people appearing in thin air to come and give them guidance they need sectioning, not supporting...

if there really are beings out there attempting to guide me, from afar, for holy purposes, then firstly, why dont they make themselves known to me, and secondly, why don't they do me any favours..? why not help me out, now and again, why not tell me and show me, rather than pass on garbled messages via strangers in third rate churches or via the hallucinations of the naive on the religious scene..?

ooh, wouldn't it be lovely to place responsibility for our spiritual development, or lack of it, on these other, more powerful, higher beings, yet this crapola, usually upheld by Theosophists and New agers is just that, rubbish, and mostly watered down concepts which have been purloined from Hinduism....

if u want to give urself over to masters, wah hey, great stuff, but, erm, its the 21st century now, and we're allowed to be our own masters... and guess what? we don't even need the priests or even jesus to intercede for us, and we can address our Gods directly, all by ourselves... all this spiritual hierarchy and higher beings helping us and guiding us gumpf is just rhetoric for the sake of it, but doesn't it make them all sound so special, and so much better than us, the blind, who cannot see the little green men at the crossroads, helping humanity heal.... really..? they are there at the hospitals, helping? funny that, cos they dont seem to have been much use with MRSA, or C.Dif...

Madame Blavatsky, oh yes, she was so holy and talented and spiritual, she would get messages from guides, who she called secret masters, and apparently they lived in Tibet, and she would astrally project and go and see them.... a few times, she had letters materialise, right there, in her hand, seemingly from nowhere... the people watching were so impressed... however, one of her disciples would pass her these letters, through an aperture...

oooh...spooky... she was also rumoured to be a great psychic, and knew so much about the ppl who came to her seeking her guidance, but unfortunately, her great wisdom didnt come from the ether, or the secret masters, it came from extensive back ground research conducted by real live ppl who would collate information about these visitors before they even arrived... ooh, mystical...

but hey, thats just my take on it...
if there really are beings out there attempting to guide me, from afar, for holy purposes, then firstly, why dont they make themselves known to me
Maybe because you're jaded, cynical and cranky.

Francis king said:
and secondly, why don't they do me any favours..? why not help me out, now and again, why not tell me and show me, rather than pass on garbled messages via strangers in third rate churches or via the hallucinations of the naive on the religious scene..?
Maybe because you're also selfish, self-righteous, full of yourself and disrespectful of others.

Work on all this, learn a little humility, stop knocking things you know absolutely nothing about ... and acting like spirit guides, angels, Masters, etc. need Francis' permission in order to exist. ;)

Believe it or not, it is possible to express an opinion, and say "I don't believe in spirit guides" - and even gives reasons, like, "because I think this weakens the traditional Protestant Christian notion of God as directly accessible to each one of us" ... without being so disrespectful, and making a complete ASS of yourself in the process.

You make it abundantly clear, that you obviously cannot think very well for yourself, since you are ready to believe all sorts of tripe that the skeptics and debunkers have written, in an effort to demean and belittle what they either cannot understand ... or cannot be bothered to take the time to properly investigate in order to understand. I don't know, Francis, are you incapable, or just plain lazy? Which is it?

You haven't seen fairies or spirits? Ohhh, poooor Francis. I'm sorry God hasn't shone you his favor and cut through your jaded, icy-cold exterior to bless you in this fashion. But since you clearly have the ear of the omnipotent one, and can whisper in it whenever you so choose, getting the direct response whispered right back ... then don't feel left out - while some of us carry on in our delusional little, hallucinated, contrived, charlatan-filled phantasy-worlds ... imagining that God actually cares, and that yes, indeed, the Almighty works through Representatives, instead of going through *Francis* every time he needs to get something done.

You know, leave a fool his delusions ... and let us spend our money on these silly books, New Age trinkets, and so forth. You keep tossing yours in the collection plate, and we'll just go on about our business.

Go grind your axe somewhere else. Or maybe try and find out who pissed on your cornflakes this morning? Naturally, none of can sleep until we know.

She knows nothing about all these spirits? And you do? Because some books tell you they are there and so on? "can't think for yourself"? (that sounds familiar....) I would side with her and say it's a bunch of cock and bull.... She is self righteous, selfish and.... disrespectful? Because she doesn't buy into this? Yeah, that makes perfect sense......... And she clearly can think for herself. Not all buy into fantasy world... :/ Get used to it.
I never said I didn't have personal experience with spirit guides. Perhaps mine even include some from most - if not all - of the categories I've mentioned. Perhaps I've had my fair share of cock 'n bull, fooled myself & been fooled, as well as experienced the real thing. And maybe, just maybe, yes, I DO know what the hell I'm talking about.

Look, if you don't wanna believe something, that's up to you. But don't start talking **** about people who see things differently, and slandering those who have labored hard to shine the Light in the dark corners of this little backwoods planet. No one says you have to buy into something that doesn't make sense to you.

Francis king said:
u have to be a sandwhich short of a picnic to fall for this trash, the pseudowisdom of con merchants, a crappy mix of angelic beings meets with transcendental spiritual otherworldy themes...
And 17th, Francis, yes, I do consider this disrespectful. I think you have to have a serious axe to grind ... and THINK you know better, to say such a thing. A discussion might actually be interesting, and useful, if people could approach it with an open enough mind to say something like:
I think a lot of this stuff is a con job, and tries to mix various ideas that don't go together. Don't you agree? Clearly not every Tom, Dick and Harry that claims an encounter with angels or enlightened beings has had one. How do we distinguish?
But this is not what Francis has said. She had, instead, made a complete FOOL of herself ... by reaching her arm out, and sweeping everything off of the table onto the floor, so to speak. If I set something on the table that you don't buy into, then pick it up, examine it, point out what seems fishy, but leave it there ... for discussion. What she has said amounts to spitting on what doesn't suit her. And what a wonderful counter-argument to the existence of spirit guides, to say, "I've got a direct line on God the Almighty, so I don't NEED some silly old spirit guide, anyway!" Dear, dear me.

My point is, you can disagree, and say why you disagree, without trying to demean, belittle, or ridicule others. And we have seen before, by another member at CR, that the safest way to try and take down someone whose ideas are threatening, or challenging to you, is to slander them, and try and attack their character. Francis is not the first to do this with H.P. Blavatsky, but she demonstrates how little she actually knows about the subject ... by parroting off something she has read, or perhaps heard. Or do I misspeak myself? Perhaps Francis is our dear Emma Coulomb, back from a brief visit to the spirit world to haunt us afresh. If you know so much about HPB, Francis, then I'm sure this will make perfect sense. I'd believe it in a heartbeat.

17th, if Francis doesn't buy into the idea of table-turning, or flowers materializing in thin air, simply because she hasn't seen this ... and because somebody, somewhere, wrote that "this sort of thing is just a sham," then that's her choice. But dear Francis, when you say that Blavatksy's great wisdom did not come from the ether, secret masters, or extensive research, you close the door to precisely the three sources whence it DID COME.

Do I know this for certain? You bet your ass I do. But I am happy to discuss it, with people who are open-minded about it, so long as I am not insulted for being so deluded as to believe such things, as Francis puts it. Perhaps then we can actually carry on the DIALOGUE, on this FORUM, since that is part of what CR was created for to begin with. Or is it too much to ask that we be willing to set aside personal prejudices, rumors and hearsay, biased accounts and cowardly calumny ... to actually approach a subject up for discussion?

I fear such may be the case.

But by all means, let us see what new piece of wit we can offer on the matter. 17th?

I will not do your thinking for you. That's your own responsibility. Or is that, too, not in vogue .... now that we have arrived in the 21st century and age of spiritual enlightenment?


lol, I haven't thrown any insult at you... I just think you're getting carried away with your response to someones opinion. People come in many forms and levels.. So naturally they compare, analyse and whatever, they put their feelings and opinions across differently from anyone else... Also I feel some people are easily insulted... too easily... I think they only have themselves to blame for that.

With any topic you will, you will get two sides of the coin... I think somewhere along the line you have to tolerate what the other side has to say to a degree ;/
17th, I do understand, and I think you are right. Perhap I am over-reacting. It wouldn't be the first time. Makes me feel pretty silly, on the one hand (doesn't invalidate what I know to be true in the least), but on the other ...

... isn't it interesting that on some forums, we must walk on eggshells, and would not dream of calling believers & followers crackpots? We do not insult those of different beliefs, no matter how strange they may seem to us, simply because it's not proper etiquette, for one thing, but also a violation of the CR Code of Conduct.

I always benefit by reminding myself, from time to time, that the CoC is there for a reason. This might be a good time to reread it, and make a mental note or two to oneself. I have just done this myself; I hope others will follow suit.

zagreus, if u look at wayfaring's post, they said- "Take a look at spiritualminded.blogspot.com for some examples of spirit guides, or inner wise guides. There is The Visionary, Michael, guide to the Field of Illusions, and Ramurabi, the Faithful Brother..."

and then they asked...

"Are these just the products of a vivid imagination?
Are they really 'out there'?
Are they something else?
How do we know?"

and so, I was offering my opinion, to wayfarer, as is the nature of forum dwelling... and as wayfarer did not specify whose opinion they wanted, I felt free to jump in and give mine...

u felt able to freely offer ur opinion, zagreus, and so then I should be able to offer mine... I did not call u, personally any names, and suggest that 17th is might be right, and ur overreacting... I did not say, "oh, and btw, Zag is a fool for believing in such- each to their own, after all...

didnt realise u were such an ardent fan of mde blavatsky, zag...
No problem, Francis ... I just get tired of seeing people trash her, after awhile. I look at her like a sister. An elder sister, maybe, but I should be so lucky as to ever find my way into her family.

Anyway, apologies for overreacting.


I wonder if this discussion is essentially meaningful. Medieval Christians postulated a whole hierarchy of angels, archangels, seraphim and the rest. Other Christian cultures have a host of major and minor saints whose task is to petition God on behalf of the faithful. Catholics pray through the BVM. Protestants pray through Jesus. All trinitarians differentiate the three persons of the trinity.

Then again Eskimos have seventeen words for snow.

Perhaps there is no "right" answer. It's just a matter of what makes sense to us.
How do we know?

We don't?

Simple... You have Zag... He swears blind this is real.. He see's and feels this... Others again are not sure... and some will swear blind it is but a scam.

But who's word can you take on it? You're own? Then do you truly know? I would say it is 100% fake... I can see nothing genuine within it... and will give an explination for any example or show or reading or whatever given to me... Others will say I am blind sighted, not looking at the "bigger picture" or I am not open minded.... Heh, But I can only go on what I know and feel like those who believe into this... I guess we'll only find out when we are dead.... Which also makes me ponder... Most things can with research or something found to be true or false... But with this you must die, to find out. I'll wait.
I would quote part of two pages from The Secret Doctrine (footnotes included), which I stumbled upon the other day (in researching hylozoism & panpsychism), since I think they are especially relevant to this discussion and to what you posted, Virtual_Cliff:
Here, again, unless the Occult teaching is accepted, we are compelled once more to face a miracle; to accept the theory of a personal, anthropomorphic Creator, the attributes and definitions of whom, as formulated by the Monotheists, clash as much with philosophy and logic, as they degrade the ideal of an infinite Universal deity, before whose incomprehensible awful grandeur the highest human intellect feels dwarfed. Let not the modern philosopher, while arbitrarily placing himself on the highest pinnacle of human intellectuality hitherto evolved, show himself spiritually and intuitionally so far below the conceptions of even the ancient Greeks, themselves on a far lower level, in these respects, than the philosophers of Eastern Aryan antiquity. Hylozoism, when philosophically understood, is the highest aspect of Pantheism. It is the only possible escape from idiotic atheism based on lethal materiality, and the still more idiotic anthropomorphic conceptions of the monotheists; between which two it stands on its own entirely neutral ground. Hylozoism demands absolute Divine Thought, which would pervade the numberless active, creating Forces, or "Creators"; which entities are moved by, and have their being in, from, and through that Divine Thought; the latter, nevertheless, having no more personal concern in them or their creations, than the Sun has in the sun-flower and its seeds, or in vegetation in general. Such active "Creators" are known to exist and are believed in, because perceived and sensed by the inner man in the Occultist. Thus the latter says that an ABSOLUTE Deity, having to be unconditioned and unrelated, cannot be thought of at the same time as an active, creating, one living god, without immediate degradation of the ideal.*
*The conception and definition of the Absolute by Cardinal Cusa may satisfy only the Western mind, prisoned, so unconsciously to itself, and entirely degenerated by long centuries of scholastic and theological sophistry. But this "Recent philosophy of the Absolute," traced by Sir W. Hamilton to Cusa, would never satisfy the more acutely metaphysical mind of the Hindu Vedantin.​

A Deity that manifests in Space and Time -- these two being simply the forms of THAT which is the Absolute ALL -- can be but a fractional part of the whole. And since that "all" cannot be divided in its absoluteness, therefore that sensed creator (we say Creators)can be at best but the mere aspect thereof. To use the same metaphor -- inadequate to express the full idea, yet well adapted to the case in hand -- these creators are like the numerous rays of the solar orb, which remains unconscious of, and unconcerned in, the work; while its mediating agents, the rays, become the instrumental media every spring -- the Manvantaric dawn of the Earth -- in fructifying and awakening the dormant vitality inherent in Nature and its differentiated matter. This was so well understood in antiquity, that even the moderately religious Aristotle remarked that such work of direct creation would be quite unbecoming to God -- [[aprepes toi theo]]. Plato and other philosophers taught the same: deity cannot set its own hand to creation, -- [[autournein hapanta]]. This Cudworth calls "Hylozoism." As old Zeno is credited by Laertius with having said, "Nature is a habit moved from itself, according to seminal principles; perfecting and containing those several things which in determinate times are produced from it, and acting agreeably to that from which it was secreted."**
** Cudworth's "Intellectual System,"I. p. 328.​
I would add ... that I always did love the Greeks. They were the only Western philosophers who I could really understand, except perhaps for Immanuel Kant, and Bishop Berkeley. Why is it that the above just makes sense to me? I don't know; I can't explain it. Having studied Blavatsky's Three Fundamental Propositions, it just makes all the sense in the world. Perhaps it dates back to Akhenaten's reign. The type of monotheism he helped popularize, versus a tendency to get lost in the maze of Hebdomad, Ogdoad, and other funny words having to do with the Pantheon.

{The Propositions are also thoroughly NeoPlatonic, Vedantin, or even Kabbalistic, if we examine them.}

None of this, in my understanding, excludes, or precludes, the concept of an unconditionally Loving, Infinitely Wise, Majestic Being ... called by esotericists the Planetary, or Solar LOGOS (Seven Elohim, Seven Rishis, Seven Dhyani Buddhas, Seven Amshaspends, Seven Spirits before the Throne, if you will - but always as expressions of the ONE).

What is said is quite in keeping with what we already know ... from say, the past century or so of LIMITED discovery, understanding & application ... of but one aspect, or example, of nature's Forces. Heat, Light, Sound, are all related to Electricity. But electricity, however we generate it upon earth (giving physical expression to something from higher worlds altogether), exists in terms of voltages ... and we speak of currents, frequences, and vibration.

Simply put, you cannot run a line, straight from your toaster, to the nuclear power plant down the road ... and expect every one else to do the same, then expect to press the little button and get toast. yeah toast!!!

That word kinda says it all. Moses, he saw the burning bush. Aaron, in the Priestly Blessing of the Kohanim, speaks volumes to us ... if you will look at what is being said - not once, but twice, in this blessing. The Secret Doctrine speaks of the Lords of Shining Countenance, as finally being forced out of incarnation (or exoteric appearance) by the Lords of the Dark Face ... during Atlantis.

We know that we are all created "in God's image," and I think that when we conceive of this in terms of the ability to co-create - on a lesser, but tremendously important scale - we are on the right track. If we will add to this the understanding of our potential to Love with the Love of Christ, then the image begins to shine. And when to this, we add Service, or Sacrifice, the "making Holy" of our entire, lesser being ... then we have grasped the Divine Blueprint (in broadest outline), in terms of Humanity's intended relationship with the Divine.

We do not plug the toaster into the nuclear power plant. It will blow up.

We do not even plug it into the box hanging out there on the power lines - the transformer. That will blow up our toaster too. And if you plug that kind of transformer into a nuclear power plant, guess what! Yeah, it's toast!!!

This is overly simplistic, obviously. There are countless more Divine energies, expressing though dozens, hundreds, thousands, even millions of possible combinations ... than just electricity - but we could come up with an analogy for the princples of Love, and Understanding, to illustrate this same idea: God reaches us, not by yelling in our ear (Alanis showed us what happens whe She does that, remember?). There is the "still, small voice," and once we have tuned into "it," everything else tends to fall into place.

I think it's worth imagining, for a moment, that it's as if we are bending down, looking through a keyhole. Sometimes there is enough light, and we manage not to be blinded, so that we can catch a glimpse of what lies beyond. Other times, we cannot "see," but if we turn our head, it is possible to hear a whisper - and in rare instances, the conversation can be as clear as a phonecall. It does not surprise me that people refer to this as "talking to God," or "speaking with Jesus." It only makes sense.

I would not dare suggest that we dabble around in the astral plane, or sit with a ouija board, because in my experience, this is just inviting trouble. Others may feel that a good "Lighten up, dude," is in order, and I think in the context that much of this stuff is discussed, this is okay advice. God knows I need to, often enough. :rolleyes:

But you can't have it both ways. If all this spirit guide crap, mumbo jumbo .... hocus pocus, scam, trickery, hieararchy that doesn't need to exist ... really doesn't - then do we each, as it were, have God's ear? I think we are back to the toaster. The only reason I don't get totally freaked out about it (having expressed this, as I have, in terms of voltages) ... is because I think Nature (God's Creation) has some Awfully good, clever safeguards built-in - such that even when people do try to plug that toaster in too close to the source, electric currents are properly stepped down, and seldom does a person end up looking like Wile E. Coyote after the ACME bomb trick backfired. :p

Incidentally, the whole idea of increased vibrational frequency - on all levels from physical, through emotional, psychological and into the Spirtual, is part of what Initiation is all about. IF there is a Hierarchy of spiritual beings (including Humans) more evolved than us ... then, I am much more likely to believe in Them if there are poeple around who claim to have had encounters with them.

And such people abound, from all walks of life, of ALL prior religious orientations, and NONE, exceedingly skeptical, as well as extremely gullible or impressionable. Theosophists are one example of esotericist, but we can look at the Spiritualists, people having had Near-Death-Experiences and out-of-body experiences, folks who claim to channel aliens/angels/masters, and so forth. To lump these all together, as if all were saying the same thing ... is a disservice, and gets us nowhere. If our argument is that all this is just hocus pocus and nonsense, then so too, this silly notion of an invisible man in the sky - WHO NEEEEEEEDS MONEY!!! Ughhhh!

The anthropomorphism, to me, is what insults our intelligence ... as people still chase around Grandpa, with the white beard, through the endless maze of the subconscious. And if he were a happy old chap, that would be one thing, but the wrathful, jealous, tribal bugger of a badguy still frightens children - well into adulthood. No wonder children have bad dreams!

As one Master points out, this is - essentially - Santa Claus ... and as our images, and wish-life, and morality-consciousness begins to clash with the more objective side of things, we find that we must repress Santa Claus - the happy, cheery old fella, who will nonetheless bring coal if you have been wicked. He KNOWS. :eek:

The Santa-Claus God ... alive and well, here on planet earth. But masters? Oh they're just a fiction, some crap that some old trickster dreamed up one day, wanting to pull the wool over your eyes. ;)

If there are no Masters in the world, we're ALL in a mess o' trouble! Spirit Guides? I am a bit skeptical, and do not seek them, personally. But if I fell overboard, and needed someone to throw me a rope, I wouldn't care WHAT planet they said they were from ... I don't wanna drown! :p

This is pretty much the story of the poisoned arrow ... and I've already been babbling about it for hours. Time to get something done!

Love and Light,

If we could meet in person, myself and at least two other people who have the least bit of interest in observing a simple illustration ... I would offer to provide one. I know, I know, I said I wouldn't sit with a ouija board. But this is actually one of the easiest, clearest ways to "tap in," imho. The problem is, that like so much else of a serious nature when it comes to the Occult Sciences ... we have the crap from sorority babes meet Satan movies, which gives it all a bad name. :rolleyes:

The diehard skeptic, if s/he comes to the table (board) with a determination not to be convinced, will walk away equally unconvinced, but all-the-more perturbed because somehow they have been the victim of a practical joke. They have been tricked! And now they cannot rest until they find out HOW! :p

What is required - is not gullibility or blind credulity, but simply the "willing suspension of disbelief." If three of us sat down with a ouija board, in a quiet corner of the coffee shop, and focused - with PURE intent - of obtaining an answer, a response, to a question put to one of history's Great Minds ... then in the vast majority of cases, I do feel that we would meet with an adequate answer. Adequate for what? Ah, this is just the point.

You CANNOT expect to sit down, if you have the SOLE INTENT within yourself ... of debunking this sort of thing ... and walk away with one shred of evidence that there are "spirits" or "spirit guides." The proper way for us to go about such a thing, would be for me to ask, what would it take - not to convince you - but to OPEN you to the possibility that this is 100% legit (in SOME cases), and not 100% fabrication (in ALL cases)?

At the end of the day, when Joe Spirit has spoken to us, you will come away wondering, probably assuming, was this just my subconscious? Ahhh, but what about the other two people at the little pointer, index thingy? Oh, I overpowered them. errr, but they made it quite clear that they did NOT feel you, or any of us, moving the thingy. Ummm, WHO did then. Well CLEARLY it can't have been "a spirit" ...

But I tell you, so long as we approached such an event with an open mind, and a positive intent ... these kind of questions are natural. We may not change our mind, or believe in this kind of thing, for years - or, EVER. This isn't really the point, the way I see it. It can take lifetimes ... before a seed that has been planted, meets the proper conditions for opening. :)

Anyone who has read much into Theosophical history (or that of HPB and the Society), should know the entire context within which HPB's phenomena were being worked, and why. She could produce phenomena, on her own, since earliest childhood. She knew her own Master from a very early age, and eventually met him in the flesh. She was the student of the Masters, living in Tibet, for a number of years - but the purpose for this apprenticing, as it might be called, was NOT so that she could make roses fall out of thin air and wow the credulous, stupid westerners into awe - then all-the-easier to stuff them fat with pernicious Eastern philosophy and watered-down Hindusim, my dear. Err, pardon me, I suddenly thought I was Margaret Gulch! :rolleyes:

But in fact, this is not entirely unfounded, given the real purpose of the seances, precipitations, flowers and buried teacups. If person, by virtue of previous lives of spiritual development, is say - 98% ready to set foot consciously on the Path (of pledged discipleship, leading to accepted discipleship, and finally to the Path of Initiation) ... then there is a good likelihood that owing to their OWN commitment and devotion, the SOUL in question (and not the personality) will react positively, and accept the "final push" that enables them to TAKE THE NEEDED STEPS ON THEIR OWN.

It's funny, when I think about it, that people actually believe that this woman, with her intriguing, amusing exterior - yet a heart of gold, and demonstrating the utmost of personal sacrifice - might have been trying to beguile, swindle, or otherwise mislead a single soul (!!!) ... given that it was the same woman who taught us the importance of The Golden Stairs:
A clean life, an open mind, a pure heart, an eager intellect, an unveiled spiritual perception, a brotherliness for one's co-disciple; a readiness to give and receive advice and instruction, a loyal sense of duty to the Teacher, a willing obedience to the behests of TRUTH, once we have placed our confidence in, and believe that Teacher to be in possession of it; a courageous endurance of personal injustice, a brave declaration of principles, a valiant defence of those who are unjustly attacked, and a constant eye to the ideal of human progression and perfection which the secret science depicts -- these are the golden stairs up the steps of which the learner may climb to the Temple of Divine Wisdom.
HPB ceased the phenomena, when the people who were witnessing it all, ceased to think for themselves - and ceased to consider the implications of what they had witnessed (the unseen powers & forces at work, producing everything in nature ... and also enabling man to tread the Spiritual Path, when he is willing). She did not want a cult following, least of all an unthinking, superstitious, impressionable bunch of sheep ... so the Masters put an end to her demonstrations.

Meanwhile, if a Master needed to get a message through, it was not uncommon to send an advanced pupil, who could materialize the message - and if need be, this meant the concretization of the sthula sharira, and HANDING it to her [HPB]. It's pure comedy to me, that people would talk about "miracles," or other manifestations and phenomena, just because some Holy Book somewhere - the accounts of people living thousands of years ago - say that so-and-so walked on water ... while eyewitness testimony SWORN to by easily a dozen or more thinking, skeptical, scientifically trained observers ... is just part'n'parcel of the "deception."

And I am still puzzling over the supposed motives! Was it money? I think not! Oh, easy then, fame! Notoriety! Glory! Err, do you have ANY idea how often, and how much, HPB was slandered, in her OWN lifetime??? This woman, one of the strongest souls we have ever known, was in TEARS because plenty enough, the clergy on one hand, and the materialistic scientists on the other, were seeking to DESTROY all that she was laboring so hard to embody, and to anchor.

They failed, of course, because of the nature of Those - and the ONE - Who were behind her ... yet the Theosophical Movement ... spiritually or esoterically speaking - was ultimately a failure, or at best, a partial success (say the Masters Themselves). The first of three sets of Teachings were provided, and these we may study today. But newer, clearer instruction has also been given, by several Masters, and most of it is easier to digest than what was written by H.P. Blavatsky.

Why do I believe a single word of what HPB wrote, and what other esoteric authors have written? For the same reason ANY of us have ever believe ANYthing. There are a handful of lesser reasons, like "nothing else makes sense to me even remotely like this does," and "gee, ya think a Master of the Wisdom just might have a clue about stuff like this?" There is also the definite, wonderful feeling of inspiration, or even that clear, illumined, insightful state or mind ... amidst which anything, it seems, can be revealed and understood as it really is - simply by turning our awareness to it. Yes, there are so many ways we can understand. "It just fits" with other stuff that makes sense to me. This in particular, is one I like. It jibes!

The Buddha, however, said that none of these was the real reason we should believe a thing. If God Himself handed you the book ... Buddha's comment would STILL apply:
But we are to believe when the writing, doctrine, or saying is corroborated by our own reason and consciousness. "For this," says he in concluding, "I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly."​
The last six words would seem to be the most important ... and time's a wastin'!

An interesting and amiable ramble if I may say so. This reminds me a bit of the discussion on angels. Do they exist? Are we (or can we be) angels for others? Are we God? St Paul describes the Church as the body of Christ.

If you look at the spectrum with definite red at one end and definite blue at the other, who can say where indigo becomes violet? So the God at the source and the human experience at the other may be different but who can authoritatively divide the line into segments and name them?

My only quibble is with your mention of Masters. I like to think we are all masters of our own destiny. For that matter we are all creators too, as we all share in creating the next moment out of the present. Creation is still happening of course. Oops - getting off topic.

best wishes,
Yeah ... Masters ... I hesitate to guess about something I understand so poorly. I have seen them referred to as simply, The Great Ones, or The Elder Brothers.

A Master is someone who has no more left to learn through incarnation upon our planet. They have Mastered life on Earth. The Eastern term is Asekha Adept, or One who is so skilled, that he is a NO-Learner (A-sekha). It is the consummation, or next stage, after arhatship.

So, the term master was never intended to convey that "these are OUR masters." The Master is the Soul within the form - the Agnishvatta (Agni, Lord of Fire + Ishvara), or Manasaputra (Son of Mind). I cannot locate the book at present, but there is a beautiful colored pencil sketch in the frontispiece of Regents of the Seven Spheres, by H.K. Challoner, which depicts `The Teacher.' I do not know if this was meant to refer to an Angel (Archangel), or perhaps the Soul itself. The eyes are closed, which conveys a certain meaning, and the portrait is of the head only. But it is an aura, not a physical form.

Many years ago I framed this picture, and meditated with it for years. I believe this is our true self, the Christ within - as an actual being, helping us to achieve the same. But relative to the personality life, the Soul is much more like the Rays of Sunshine mentioned in Blavatsky's quote. The Soul does not descend, in terms of consciousness, into the worlds of form. We meet it within the higher mind, and at-one-ment begins to occur, Soul-infusion. This is gradual, and can take several lifetimes, but often climaxes in one particular life.

So the idea of guardian angels, while interesting, does not register with me. I think there are angels (devas), and even human helpers, who can assist in the capacity that people mean by this term. But the notion that someone or something is floating around, just waiting for an opportunity to serve us, or bail us out, is a reversal of things. This notion of spirit guides is one I do not like, for it seems absurdly selfish, and only reinforces the idea of a separate ego-consciousness, and self-importance.

Bringing the Masters down to the level of glorified personalities, desiring some kind of respect, admiration, worship, cult-following, or fan club, is not what Blavatsky and Bailey intended. They both bitterly regretted telling the public about the Masters, even though this was part of what they were asked to do. In Alice Bailey's case, it was actually a mistake on her part, that Master DK's identity was ever disclosed to begin with.

I know I am verbose, but the whole subject is 90% subjective for me, impossible to express. The one word, `Augeiodes,' for example, communicates volumes. This, plus the Aaronic Blessing, mean a great deal to me.