Spirit Guides: 3 Easy Steps To Connecting And Communicating With Your Spirit Helpers

I've decided to take a vacation from the usual, and I downloaded this short and inexpensive e-book. I haven't finished it, yet, mostly because I'm doing another unusual: I'm trying some of the techniques in the book. I consider the subject of "spirit guides" to be problematic to write about, mostly because it falls into the realm of belief, and I try to avoid that here. Plus, spirit guides are (generally) invisible--and I'm all about making the unseen and mysterious visible and comprehensible.

For the bulk of my life, not only did I not believe in spirit guides, I actively disbelieved in them. But I had a few experiences that forced me to change my opinion on the subject. I now believe. In my experience (plus what I've learned elsewhere), the influence of a "spirit guide" manifests in precognitive warnings, hints, suggestions and the like. For most, this information is veiled and disguised so that it blends seamlessly with our usual interior dialog. It rarely intrusive.

Because of this, it's easy to dismiss the whole subject. In fact, who's to say that all these promptings aren't manifestations of our subconscious, or "God," or even genuine precognition? I suppose that there really isn't any way to prove that spirit guides are behind all this--but I like to explain unknowns with the lowest common denominator. A certain portion of "spirit guide" information involves premonition of events that are impossible for the conscious ego to foresee. It also involves complicated arrangements of future timelines involving many people. It's just easier for me to imagine that there's a "someone" coordinating this behind the scenes.

So, how do spirit guides work (hypothetically speaking)? Well, based on everything that I've read, this depends on the guide, on you, on where you are in life, and what you need to achieve at your present stage. We all have a deadline--literally. There are things we must learn, experience and (hopefully) achieve while we're here. So, if you're on a tight deadline, your learning process may be accelerated. So, results may vary.

In my personal experience, however, the information comes primarily in two channels: reflectively, and via precognition. Reflectively--it's hard to summarize this, but frequently I have the distinct sense that "someone" is reminding me of random events from my past, almost as if to say, "Remember ten years ago when you did such-and-such?" It is always expressed as an open-ended question, with no judgement. But I always see a connection to my current predicaments.

Again, how do I know that these promptings aren't just my subconscious? I really don't know. But these past experiences are carefully selected, never random, and they are almost always things that I haven't thought about in years. There seems to conscious, deliberate intent behind the process. If I were simply neurotic (is "neurosis" included as a disorder in the DSM-5?), I would simply obsess over the same series of things over and over, and see no linkage with my present life. My experience is not like that.

Precognition is not as frequent, but it usually involves a certain "knowing" of what choice, action, or task to perform, in a certain way--to avoid harm, to myself and others, or to benefit others or myself. Most people recognize this as an "inner voice," or "something tells me I better do this or not do that." After having several of these experiences, I decided to take another look at the subject of spirit guides.

Update: I actually posted this entry Monday but pulled it down because I didn't like what I'd written. But I mentioned that I would try one of the techniques in the book. I tried the "Rapid Start Technique," specifically, expressing the question, "What is the one thing I can do tomorrow to improve my karma?" Yeah, I know--very New Agey. Once expressed, I actually went to sleep and forgot about it (which is always a given with me). I did not expect anything. But today (Wednesday) something happened out of the blue that caused me to dig up some memories and records from twenty years ago. It involved an extended family connection, a death, a funeral, as well as other things I had totally forgotten about. "This is odd," I thought. Then I remembered--my "rapid start" question. Was this an answer from a "spirit guide"? Maybe. Maybe probably?

"True Time Travel Stories: Amazing Real Life Stories In The News"

This small book is available free for Kindle Prime customers, and I recommend it as a good introduction to "alternative viewpoints" regarding time. Our culture views "time" as an absolute, a non-negotiable past, present, and future--in that order. Physicists (and careful students of alternative realities) know that "time"--if not exactly an illusion--is not the absolute that we perceive it to be. (Students of the Seth material are instructed that both time and space are illusions, not absolute laws of reality.)

Along this line: a recent article on retrocausality and the possibility that the future can influence the past. While science is pondering this possibility on a quantum scale, students of consciousness suspect that it happens on the macro level as well. Our experience of time is not absolute... Just as there are glitches in the Matrix, time can stand still, flow backwards, repeat, skip centuries, and bleed through the decades--as Richard Bullivant demonstrates through a number of intriguing accounts.

It was my personal observation of time anomalies as a teen that drove my quest into the whole alternative field, and it still fascinates me. I believe that there is a part of our consciousness that exists outside of chronological time. We aren't really aware of it--we remain stuck on the flypaper of time--but, if there *is* a part of our consciousness outside of time, it would leave traces, signs, in the form of precognition and synchronicities.

On a more dramatic level: One of the most remarkable aspects of remote viewing (beyond the fact that it even exists at all) is that chronological time is completely irrelevant to the remote viewer. The remote viewer can accurately view a target "before" it is even selected (through double-blind tests where the target is randomly selected many hours after the RV session); the remote viewer can accurately describe an event at a target that will happen well into the future (though the viewer experiences it as happening "now"); the remote viewer can immediately view a target that, in physical terms, is lightyears away. Time, and space, simply do not exist to the skilled remote viewer.

And, finally, a personal reminiscence--Anyone who grew up in the late '60s and early '70s surely remembers one aspect of the Kennedy assassination that's practically forgotten today: an explosion of popular articles listing a number of striking similarities between the Kennedy assassination of 1963 and the Lincoln assassination of 1865. I don't remember most of them anymore (they seemed very compelling at the time, though). The popular consciousness seemed to draw a link between the two events, separated by one hundred years. There might be something to it all, though. Looking holistically at the two events, how both occurred at the nexus of great social and civil change, it can be argued that the two assassinations were not two separate occurrences but rather two parts of the same "event"--separated by "time" and performed by different actors. If evolution can unfold over millions of years, why can't a seminal and liminal event unfold over a hundred?

Learning how to see (ponderings on "Mind Trek")

Something that may be overlooked in the study of Remote Viewing--but which becomes very obvious in Joe McMoneagle's account of his early RV experiences--is that the biggest hurdle that the remote viewer faces (aside from self-doubt) is learning, again, how to "see."  The beginning remote viewer is confronted with a jumble of disconnected images that only slowly form recognizeable gestalts. The RVer is "seeing" something but is unable to comprehend the images perceived. What follows is a period of training and conditioning where the beginning RVer learns, slowly, to assemble the raw images into a self-contained whole, and then, later, learn to associate what is seen with known objects in the physical world.

We face an identical predicament as newborns and infants--the world appears as a jumble of images--and over the next several years of development, with (hopefully) positive input from adults, the newborn builds the necessary neurological infrastructure to make sense of what is seen.  That is also why it's difficult to build a robot that "sees."  The robot can process images, but it does not automatically see the world that we see--like the infant and the beginning remote viewer, it must be trained.

I know that there's a fundamental truth in all this, and I may not be smart enough to articulate it. But what I think is that there may be some truth in the notion that the world that we see as physical, absolute, and "real," is in fact a constructed reality. Our brains and physical sense organs may not only perceive reality, but also construct it. There may be some merit to the argument that our physical world is actually layered with multiple realities and timelines.

Paradoxically, I can't explain why most near-death experiencers seem to be able to immediately perceive their immediate physical environment when out-of-body and recognize it as being identical to the physical. Why don't NDErs have to "learn" all over again how to see the physical world?

Both the NDEr and the remote viewer are using what Seth labeled the "inner senses."  It may be that the remote viewer has to filter what is perceived through the physical brain. The NDEr has no such obstacle. Seth argues that we have to learn how to use our inner senses, because we've forgotten how. "Learning" is largely a function of the physical world. Perception out-of-body is direct and (as Seth would say) "undistorted."  The moment we pull extra-sensory data into the physical brain, we distort it. The process of untangling this distorted data into something that makes sense is the "learning" part of remote viewing.

Overall, I think that within the phenomenon of remote viewing lies a profound truth about the nature of our reality, and it is the fear of this truth that causes the material scientists to reject it, and all extra-sensory perception.

Joe McMoneagle's "Mind Trek" is out on Kindle

But good luck finding it--it's not linked to the paper edition of the book.  And if you search for "Joe McMoneagle" on Amazon, only the paper books show up in the results.  Why?  Obviously, it's a conspiracy.  Someone doesn't want this information to get out.

I found the Kindle edition through my own back-channels and sources, which I won't (for now) disclose. However, at $5.99, it's a bargain. In "Mind Trek" McMoneagle discusses his NDE, as well as remote viewing of Mars. There is (or was) a Flash animation transcript of the RV session online which is quite intriguing. I've always wanted to have know more about this session, and now I can.

Also in Kindle format (and for a good price) are a couple of Ingo Swann books, including the infamous "Penetration," long out of print and very pricey.  Russell Targ has described "Penetration" as a work of fiction, and it probably is--though I suspect that there are some veridical elements in it.

More Adventures In The Hard Problem Of Science

I've spent a depressing week or so reading about recent frauds and scandals in NDE research, along with skeptical attacks by various online writing heads and self-anointed proxies of officialdom, so it was refreshing to read a recent discussion about the hard problem of science by cutting edge thinkers who seem to know what they're talking about.  I've blogged about this before, I know (though it's debatable whether anyone read it), but it's nice to see some constructive thinking for a change. To sum it up: for centuries, science has avoided any discussion of consciousness--largely because science has proven unable to explain the phenomenon--but lately, a few scientific souls have ventured, tentatively, the possibility that our consciousness is not rooted in the brain, but originates "elsewhere."

Cited in the article were two references to brain mapping:

Christof Koch, the chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, and a key player in the Obama administration’s multibillion-dollar initiative to map the human brain, is about as credible as neuroscientists get. But, he told me in December: “I think the earliest desire that drove me to study consciousness was that I wanted, secretly, to show myself that it couldn’t be explained scientifically. I was raised Roman Catholic, and I wanted to find a place where I could say: OK, here, God has intervened. God created souls, and put them into people.” Koch assured me that he had long ago abandoned such improbable notions. Then, not much later, and in all seriousness, he said that on the basis of his recent research he thought it wasn’t impossible that his iPhone might have feelings.

As I've mentioned before, the concept of "brain mapping" is a recent one... Though I haven't checked, my hunch is that it was not a widespread concept until very recently--when President Obama launched his brain mapping initiative.  Yet it was predicted in "Seth Speaks" fifty years ago:

[In the twenty-first century] new areas will be activated in the brain to physically take care of them. Physically then, brain mappings will be possible in which past-life memories are evoked. All of these alterations are spiritual changes in which the meaning of religion will escape organizational bounds, become a living part of individual existence, and where psychic frameworks rather than physical ones form the foundations for civilization.

Interestingly enough, while the scientific cutting edge is toying with the idea that consciousness does not originate in the brain, "Seth" suggests that brain mappings will uncover currently unknown areas of consciousness that will indicate that "we" are more than our consciousness

Indeed, the most glaring oversight (to me) in the Guardian's analysis is the assumption that there is *a* consciousness--a singular thing that either you have, or don't have.  Anyone who has dealt closely with mental illness knows this simply isn't so. A human being can walk, talk, and behave as if on autopilot--yet retain no conscious awareness of the behavior and will deny any memory of it. Consciousness can leave the physical body, and, on rare occasions, an "alien" consciousness can invade the body and manipulate it. Consciousness can disintegrate, reassemble, throw off fragments of "itself," and reassemble into new personality gestalts.  What about quality of consciousness?  What about degrees of awareness?  Is a stupid and unaware consciousness the same "thing" as an evolved and aware one?  Is autism spectrum--a type of consciousness that interacts with our world in radically nonconventional ways--a "different" type of consciousness?

I first read Michael Newton's ideas of the "soul" originating from elsewhere and incarnating in a new physical body about a decade ago, and I still haven't made peace with the idea. Many people--not just materialists--resist the idea that the "I" that looks through our eyes and is largely synonymous with the physical body, does not, in fact, originate in the physical body. And the possibility that this "I" is in fact a blending of several consciousness--a "spiritual" one, a "body consciousness," plus random conscious "fragments" that we might pick up like viruses--is almost repellant. Yet--the logical, analytical part of me--whoever I really am--has to admit that it's the best explanation for the infinite varieties of conscious experiences that we have barely begun to acknowledge.

NDE Dual Consciousness and Disassociation (cont'd)

Further explorations of the candid NDEs compiled in the "Near Death Experiences" book from NDERF.org.

*Universally, the "self" consciousness separates from the physical body with minimal disruption. In the case of trauma, consciousness vacates the body immediately before the trauma (or immediately into the trauma); in case of illness, separation takes a bit longer.

There is minimal disruption of identity or perception during this process--no lengthy period of disorientation, which is what one would expect.  In most cases, the shift on awareness is rapid and is akin to a camera lens acquiring a new focus.

One NDEr vividly describes the transition:

Sometime shortly after this event, I passed out/went to sleep. I have no chronology of events at this point in time, but I slowly began to very clearly see my hospital room from above. It's like I was high enough in the air to see all four corners of this small room clearly, along with it's contents, of course. This picture didn't just pop into view, it slowly became bright and clear, much like a movie will sometime do, very slowly fade from black to a bright and clear picture. ("Don S")

And then, when blood is pumped into his body:

It was at that moment, my clear view of the event began to sparkle. The sparkling became more intense and finally the entire picture was blank white.  A few seconds later, the white began to darken and I was looking up at the ceiling and light fixture in my room from my bed. I could see both doctors standing at the foot of my bed still working with that bag.  ("Don S")

In case of surgery or medical emergency, conscious separation almost always coincides with cardiac arrest (if not immediately before).  Experiencers almost always describe "waking up" above the body, viewing the operating theater below, hearing alarms go off, seeing the medical personnel reacting to the alarms, and realizing that the heart has stopped. So, separation seems to be occurring at the moment of cardiac arrest--if not just before.

The experience of "Jasun E":

I could feel the serum like a warm track going right to my heart and I knew I was having a reaction., I felt a pain in my heart. and I no longer could move anything or say anything. I heard the nurse scream and push a button on the wall,.  Code red or blue? I felt the nurses and doctors trying to revive me. They had put the paddles on me twice but my heart did not start.  then the doctor climbed onto my body and tock a large needle and thrust into my check and pushed the plug down I then felt my heart start up.  The Amazing thing I was outside of my body looking at myself.  * * * The color went out of everything and turned to Black and white then I was outside of my body looking at myself.

Cardiac arrest might trigger the separation of consciousness.  Or, possibly, when the "greater" personality vacates the body, the heart stops.

The main point is that the primary consciousness--the self, the "I"--remains intact whether in the body, or outside of it.  You are still "you," and you immediately recognize this, despite the confusion caused by seeing your body (which you had always assumed to be the real "you").  You are not suddenly transformed into another personality, an "angel," or a higher being. Although you may be aware of a greater reality, you are still "you."

There is a school of thought in the New Age circles (particularly Michael Newton) that argues that the human personality is a merging of a "higher consciousness" with a body consciousness. 

Musings on this subject are beyond the scope of this humble blog, since my ponderous and limited consciousness hesitates to pretend to comprehend something "greater."

At the very least, however, the predominant theme of "Seth Speaks" (which I've read a bazillion times) is that consciousness is not a product of the physical body, but is, in fact, a co-creator of the physical form. Despite separation from the body, essential self-consciousness continues, with minimal interruption. The NDE accounts in the "Near Death Experiences" compilation affirm this over and over. This principle not only contradicts official science, but also strongly held Western beliefs. We are conditioned to believe that our essential consciousness is a product of biological activity--and we can empirically "prove" this to ourselves by altering our consciousness with different drugs and medications.  Although there's plenty of evidence that consciousness trumps physicality (the placebo effect is the best known), it's simply easier to believe what is most useful to function in our world. "Near Death Experiences" however, points to a different and potentially more transformative reality. It's a reality that I'm comfortable believing in.

Teaching robots to see

Intersting article at a site I read daily about an activity that most us assume is natural: seeing.  We assume that "seeing" is an in-born and natural ability, but it isn't: We have to learn to see, a process that dominates our infancy.

We look out into the world and see forms, movement, boundaries, color, light and darkness. We define the boundaries of a form by judging the gradations of light. We interpret motion by mentally sampling the perceived form against the background (which we completely understand to be a background), and we can identify that form specifically ("Bill") or generally (a man, but not Bill).

All this we do automatically, billions of mental transactions daily, and (usually) what we think we see is most likely what we think it is.

Robots, however, see our world as a two-dimensional canvas with a jumble of colors and shapes that bleed into a formless, amorphic blob.

I mention this because almost all near-death experiencers find themselves out-of-body, and to their astonishment, discover that they are able to see the same physical environment in roughly the same way as when they were in-bodied, despite not having eyes or even a brain.

Mainstream science rejects NDEs because scientists know perfectly well that this is impossible: our eyes see, and our brain perceives.

I think that this is a good point and worth wrapping our minds around it for a moment. Even if you believe that we "create our own reality" and that what we assume to be a physical is some sort of mental projection, why is the out-of-body reality perceived and recognized (at least in the initial stages) as being esstentially the "same" as it appeared moments earlier? Generally speaking, if the NDEr is in a car crash, that's what he sees
--the same objective car crash the his body was in moments earlier, in the same environment, with the same participants.

If, in fact, what we perceive as our physical reality is a objective representation, the same for all who see, regardless of how they perceive it, why don't robots see this automatically?