The following comments originally appeared at Earthpages.ca in response to the entry Alien Possession Theory (APT).
The thread touches on several fundamental points in a discussion about mysticism, psi and religion, so we’ve decided to re-post it here.
Earthpages.org 
PSI is real, and not malevolent. If anything, it breeds a more compliant human. The only malevolent action being performed in our society is from humans…
These days I’m getting more interested in the idea of verifying psi.
It seems some people say it’s real when they haven’t tried too hard to verify their perceptions. They get a thought… and suddenly they’re mind-readers, even though they make no effort to see if what they’re perceiving was really thought by the other.
No one is able to directly read another’s mind. It involves a system of quasi-organic satellite systems.
http://earthaccount.wordpress.com
Sounds like an interesting idea. Could you elaborate? Thanks…
There’s a system to gaining information about another human being. First of all, you must have a brain that is capable of allowing the appropriate frequency. This is accomplished through various means.
As far as the dispersement of information, it must be cleared by a third party, before it is released to the human requesting it. The amount of information varies from human to human, and from third-party to third-party.
Just a note:
It is apparent that the writer of the above article has never had an experience with an e.b.e.n. And, after such a scathing attempt to discredit anyone who has, would never admit it if he did.
It amazes me how one can consider themselves an expert in a field of study without having any experience, whatsoever, in that particular subject. (i.e. an expert in music is one who expertly performs on an instrument. Not someone who has read books about instruments.)
Also, as far as those who have had contact with e.b.e.n. as a result of a dysfunctional upbringing, I suppose it’s possible that certain Federal employees of both the United States and other governments, have had this misfortune.
But, so has the entire human race, for that matter.
Excluding the writer of this article, of course……….
Reply to December 22, 2008 at 8:59 pm
According to this theory, are the third parties entirely spiritual beings or do they have some kind of physicality?
Reply to December 22, 2008 at 9:35 pm
From my perspective it sounds like you’re misinterpreting the intent of the article. Toward the end it states:
“It should be stressed that APT is chiefly concerned with understanding and rectifying beliefs about ETs and psi that are deemed as potentially unhealthy and dysfunctional.
The notion that not just hostile but benevolent ETs may, indeed, exist is not ruled out. But APT places Husserlian brackets³ around any such truth-claims.”
It is not scathing for a doctor to talk about a given illness. Nor is it scathing for APT to focus on unhealthy psycho-spiritual beliefs. APT, as the article says, does not rule out the possibility of benevolent ETs.
Reply to second statement:
In looking over the above article, again, I don’t feel I have misinterpreted it’s overall intent. But, I will consider your viewpoint further on this matter.
Reply to first statement:
At this juncture, I can only speak from my own experience. Therefore, the following information can not be referred to as theory, but as fact. (We, as people, don’t have theories about our own experiences. I was raised in several parts of the world. This is not a theory, this is a fact.)
Your question:
“According to this theory, are the third parties entirely spiritual beings or do they have some kind of physicality?”
I was first trained in telepathic communication at the approximate age of 7. I remember the statement clearly:
Learn this technique. There will be a time in your life when it will be your only means of communicating privately.
I did learn this technique, and apparently perfected it over a period of several years. It was extremely difficult to refine this process, as there were thousands of frequencies to overcome. (Imagine trying to “tune in” to a certain radio station, among thousands of competing forces.)
As I grew older, I gleaned information from that frequency.
Through experience, I realized that I was being given information from a third-party, about other human beings. At this point, this was a formless, faceless “entity”, if you will.
Over the years, because of the refinement of my personal abilities to focus, I noticed that the third-party had been changed, to something with “mass.” But, that mass, could also become formless.
Therefore, I am currently communicating through a third-party, who has mass.
Apparently, there is a step-process to this ability. Perhaps this is necessary in the primitive stage.
You are probably picking up that the article was first written several years ago and largely influenced by a person once telling me things that never came true–not as s/he said they would, anyhow.
And that person seemed to believe s/he was infallible at that time. So yes, I was alerted to the idea that the belief in ETs/psi without careful discernment might be a cover-up for unresolved psychological issues.
But as the years go by I don’t see the world in ethical black and whites. Oh yes, I do believe in heaven and hell, but as for this world in time… I see different mixes of good and not so good. And the same could go for ETs, I would speculate.
Now, as for your idea that you are speaking fact and not theory, on this I have to partly disagree. Even though you say it is a fact that you lived in different parts of the world, I would reply that your definition of “parts of the word” is influenced by how you as a human being interpret and construct that world. Hence, even “facts” such as that involve some degree of data collection, interpretation and working theory.
If we, for instance, squash the idea of matter and remember that this complex energy ball called Earth is rotating on its axis and orbiting another energy ball called the sun… which itself is part of an expanding galaxy… then “part of the world” might become a little problematic. Do you see? It might depend on the paradigm one rests in–i.e. one’s cosmology.
Just just some thoughts. My view on all this is that any kind of gift, ability or power, psychic or otherwise, is utterly meaningless without unselfish love (St. Paul). And that St. Paul makes this distinction to my mind suggests that there could be a dark side, with dark powers and dark agendas.
That’s all I’m getting at, really. The idea that people should be careful and THINK rather than be duped by some psychic sap.
Thanks for your stimulating comments..
I did live, and was raised, in Europe. That’s a fact, I can prove it. (to be taken with humor)
It’s a shame that Christianity is being so shaken by “psychic sap” as you refer to it. “Psychic sap” is referred to in religion, in many ways.
How do you explain revelations and visions given to Jesus Christ? Is it just semantics? Are revelations, visions and “psychic” abilities – not the same truths – but with different labels?
This conversation is beginning to remind me of one that I had with a priest so long ago, who warned me of my own experiences due to my fervent prayer life. I remember my response to his comments:
Why is it that priests teach us of amazing miracles, to believe in unseen things, yet, when we do, indeed see these things, experience these miracles, they turn to us and say:
“Are you sure?”
I often wonder if priests are in place, not to lead us to the beauty and majesty of the unseen world, but to keep us from it…
Thank you, Dr., for your polite responses.
Entry printed from Oxford English Dictionary Online
Copyright © Oxford University Press 2008
sap, n.4
SECOND EDITION 1989
School slang.
(sæp) [prob. f. SAP v.3, though appearing earlier in our quots.]
1. One who studies hard or is absorbed in books.
—–
Entry printed from Oxford English Dictionary Online
Copyright © Oxford University Press 2008
sap, n.5
SECOND EDITION 1989
(sæp) [Short for SAPSKULL.]
A simpleton, a fool.
—–
Hi… I was thinking more along the lines of the above.
At any rate, just because one priest could not appreciate your inner life does not make all priests hard-nosed cretins. There is a strong mystical tradition in the RCC. And if you don’t believe me, ask me to send you some book titles.
I think the caution that the RCC urges is to some degree good because, so I believe, there is a dark side to the spirit–i.e. evil. But there is also a light side, a good side which comes from God.
The whole point that you seem to be missing here is that ETHICS may come into play in the spiritual life. I believe it’s ridiculously simplistic to assume that all things psi are necessarily good and of God. But yes some insights, interior perceptions and revelations are no doubt from God.
I am just trying to suggest that both exist, the good and the bad. You don’t have to agree. In the free world we’re allowed to disagree.
Seasons Greetings to you!
I find it offensive that someone who knows very little about me, whether it be a priest or a complete stranger, assumes that just because I am an expert in the field of metaphysics (and I mean by experience, not book-reading), that I am a low-level thinker and therefore, indulge, without common sense or intellect, in the dark side.
Seasons Greetings to you, too – Dr. Clark
Teresa, this whole site is about dialogue. By responding to some of your comments I’m simply trying to further investigate this complicated topic in the hope of mutual understanding and a positive outcome.
It’s not always easy to instantly understand another person’s perspective. Sometimes it takes time, patience and a lot of good will.
Happy Holidays!
I understand completely, Michael. I, too, have seen many people gravitate towards the “dark side” of metaphysics. But, I am not one of them.
Interestingly, in my experience, there seems to be more interest in that area than it’s opposing side – which is actually dominant and much, much more complicated. (I must admit that this is only conjecture on my part, having no experience with it’s counterpart)
Hello Earthpages.ca Hello Terasa although I don’t pretend to understand the full meaning of the above article ( I am a simple man ) I do however have a view that I would like to share on the aspect of good and evil and fact. As I see it there is water ( fact).There is cold water ( not so sure ) There is hot water ( not so sure ether ). Although I know there is such a thing as water, I am not so sure there is such a thing as hot water and cold water. I find that sure this water in this reef pool may be hot.You may put your hand in the reef pool and say the water is cold. Now we both agree the water is water but the thought of hot or cold is a matter of opinion. Let me just say on this point, when the Christians where burning witches at the stake there were a lot of people who thought this to be a good thing and most followers of God did indeed believe it was. But know if they were to decide to burn withes at the stake would it still be coincided the good thing to do? I therfore feel although there may be wise or unwise things to do good and evil are not set as like hot or cold water. What to one is good to another maybe evil. And as for the concept of calling evil dark and good light, as you have done,
“I think the caution that the RCC urges is to some degree good because, so I believe, there is a dark side to the spirit–i.e. evil. But there is also a light side, a good side which comes from God.”
I also find that not only wrong and misleading but also rather primitive in thinking. So primitive in fact I would say it stretchers back to primitive man who see the night time as a scary time as the sun has let and the are not sure of its return unless it destroys the darkness which was a battle that ensued ever day and by some miracle the light always one unless you were an nocturnal animal in which case hoary the darkness bet back the light again.
Anyway as I say I am a simple man but I hope this is relevant to your conversation.
fevah – I think I understand your argument. You seem to be suggesting that morality is relative and socially constructed.
I am in partial agreement with you. I think some judgments about ‘good and bad’ are influenced by cultural bias. But I would hesitate to say that all moral judgments are relative.
Some things could just be morally wrong, regardless of the time, place or situation. Moreover, other things could be morally wrong in one situation but not in another.
Ultimately God knows for sure. But I also believe that most human beings can sense right and wrong providing they are truly honest with themselves at a very deep and fundamental level.
Michael:
Fevah is a Shaman from the Tongan Islands in the South Pacific, who’s culture has been divided and nearly dissolved by Christianity. You may be interested in his story for a future article.
Teresa, I am pretty open-minded when it comes to posting other people’s articles and opinions at http://www.earthpages.org.
If fevah would like to submit something, I leave that up to him. Same goes for yourself. If you’re interested in submitting to earthpages.org, just follow this link:
https://epages.wordpress.com/submit/
Thanks very much!
I’ll consider that. Thanks!
By the way, I added you to my blogroll. I didn’t know how to do that until this morning, my apologies for the delay.
Teresa, thank you so much. These days I refrain from adding external links (other than my own) to my blogroll as I’ve had some hassles in the past with jealousy and resentment from those I did not include.
But further to our conversation, I was just thinking that one possible way of discerning the negative from the positive spiritual influence is that the former tries to duplicate itself, almost like a clone or virus, among individuals whereas the latter allows for each person’s unique individuality.
Although some seem to imply that C. G. Jung’s psychology is spiritually infantile, I think his theory of archetypes is a convenient, if imperfect, way of conceptualizing this idea.
For Jung the ego ideally masters the archetype, and not the other way around. By the same token, Jung says the ego is ideally a servant of the self, which itself is an archetype of totality.
What do you think?
(I keep getting hits from your site called “incoming links”, I thought I was on your blogroll. )
Jung, a well-read mystic. I am fairly familiar with some of his theories, but I find that his language and terminology exclude those who are, perhaps, in most need of this type of information.
But, to your question and apparent interest in the discernment of negative spirits versus positive. (Archaic terminology we’re using, but let’s use it for clarity)
You must understand, that this is a very, very complicated process and not easily explained in common terms. And, as a matter of fact, I have never attempted to explain it in text.
This process, with me, was done in steps. Again, remember that I only speak from personal experience.
The first step, was discerning the body-reaction to deceit. Somehow, and for some unknown reason, my body reacts in a physical way to false information. This, as I understand, is a small step to discernment of negative spirits and their communications. The exercise of this function was practiced through intentional deceptive statements given to me by living humans, and the body-reaction was noted. Then, I was told to compare that reaction to the information I was given by the communicants of the spirit realm.
No reaction.
I was told that the body-reaction is the most reliable, aside from a logical approach to the information, which again, is a step process.
There is also a process of comparison, categorization, and validation.
If you recall, in the Bible, perhaps, it states that a mystic “reads the land.” This is true, in my experience. But, again, a very complicated method….
Also, as far as the ego, in the long process of mysticism, and by the allowance of the mystic, the ego is dissolved.
You must remember that mysticism can be dangerous to those who merely want to dabble, and not continue. In the ancient Mystery Schools, many were warned that if an individual chooses to discontinue their training, they may, indeed, die – spiritually. I think the “death” they were referring to was “die to truth.”
I have been known to compare my mystery school training with that of the Navy Seals. It has been dangerous and extremely challenging. But, I am also very aware of the fact that if I had discontinued “in the middle” I would have rendered myself both helpless and victimized. Not by the spirit realm, but by humanity.
One more thought referring to your statement:
“…the former tries to duplicate itself, almost like a clone or virus, among individuals whereas the latter allows for each person’s unique individuality.”
I would have to agree with that. Unfortunately, it doesn’t shed a positive light on organized religion versus mysticism.
Mysticism, in my opinion, does, indeed, allow for a person’s unique individuality. Whereas, organized religion tends to limit it.
But, perhaps I am thinking too broadly.
“The exercise of this function was practiced through intentional deceptive statements given to me by living humans, and the body-reaction was noted. Then, I was told to compare that reaction to the information I was given by the communicants of the spirit realm.”
I’d find this more convincing if you tested with live human beings in each instance–one group lies to you and the other tells the truth.
Funny thing is that I seem to have a similar reaction when people lie to me. On an intuitive level it rings hollow and phony.
I can rarely prove it of course because most liars are so messed up they hardly realize, themselves, that they are lying and will probably deny it if pressed.
As for the ego, just to clarify I did not mean ego as in ’selfish desire’ but in the Jungian sense.
http://www.psychceu.com/Jung/sharplexicon.html
To denigrate all organized religion to my mind is not going to make anything better in terms of advocating global understanding and peace.
However, I agree that organized religion does have its less desirable and immature aspects, which are often singled out and magnified by gnostics and mystics such as yourself.
In your words I see little appreciation for the good in organized religion, which to me suggests that you believe your own perspective/path is of more value.
In reference to your closing statement:
Being someone who apparently is enamored by Jung, it would appear that you value his path greatly, as he was a mystic. There are many great mystics in history. Their visions and revelations continue to fill the books that are studied and honored by seekers to this very day. Mysticism, therefore, is a valued path by the world’s view, and will, no doubt, survive the ever-changing winds of time. Until, that is, each and every human in existence begins to embrace and nourish their own “seeded” capabilities. According to my understanding of Jesus Christ’s statements, and I paraphrase, he noted that all people could know what he knew, and rise above the common understandings of their current times.
As far as organized religion, I do find it limiting. It seems to be circular, and not spiraling upwards, as it could be. Having spent nearly 30 years both attending and being employed by various ministries, I found this to be so, once again, from personal experience.
I have spent much time visiting the altars of various faiths, and have, in the past, been willing to bow at each and every one of them. But, as my revelations continued over the course of my life, I discovered that the entity that may, or may not, occupy the altar of which my sincere reverence was directed – neither expected a prostrate posture, nor desired it.
If one considers that our creator(s) to be of superior intelligence, grace and mercy, they must also concede that humility accompanies true power. I have been in the company of the most brilliant minds in the world, and some of the most influential and most powerful. I have always offered my respect, but have never been asked to degrade myself in their presence. The only time self-degradation, in my life, has been appropriate or required, was when I was in the company of those whose power was lofty, and limited…
I said Jung is convenient if imperfect. That means I use some of his ideas for pedagogical purposes while recognizing his limits, as he himself did to some degree.
As a scientific investigator I don’t buy into any theory completely. Instead, I form my own hypotheses and related theories and try, as best one can, to test them in the field of real life.
Would it be safe to assume, Dr. Clark, that you approach the field of scientific investigation……as a skeptic?
That term has varied meanings and I’m not in the habit of using it to describe my own approach.
See >> http://earthpages.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/skepticism/
From my perspective, it might be possible for one to have an experience or experiences that are beyond a shadow of a doubt. But I also think some problems may arise, especially with regard to experiences of so-called “ultimate reality.”
Two main issues I see are:
1) A person has experience ‘A’ at time ‘1′ and believes this is ultimate reality–i.e. God. Then, down the road, a person has experience ‘B’ at time ‘2′ that contextualizes the experience ‘A’ that they had at time ‘1,’ compelling him or her to revise their former belief concerning A-1.
This process arguably could go on indefinitely. That is, C-3 could contextualize B-2. D-4 could contextualize C-3 and so on.
2) One person’s experience and related understanding of ultimate reality may be more comprehensive than another person’s.
Plato and Socrates have influenced me greatly in my life. If I haven’t read all of their collective works, there are those that I’m not aware of. When I read your response today, I was reminded of a quote from one of the dialogues, which again, I paraphrase:
“Man is not capable of understanding that which he doesn’t halfway know.”
This has been something I bear in mind whenever I attempt to explain mysticism, to someone who has not recollected the “seeded” experience in their own life. I use the term recollected for a specific reason., along with the term “seeded.“
In my experience, I used a singular event to guide me to this day. I accepted the outcome of that event, not by faith alone, but by logic and common sense. For brevity’s sake, I offered a prayer when I was a child, that, through bizarre and miraculous means, came true. It was a prayer of protection for my mother, who was in harm’s way. Not only was my mother unharmed, but the perpetrators vanished into thin air.
Literally.
As a result, my mother went into a form of shock, and I was left to accept that someone heard my prayer, and was willing to prove themselves so strongly, so dynamically, that I never forgot that event to this day.
According to your theory, that would be considered “A1” or “ultimate reality.” This event was witnessed by two parties, so it wasn’t a subjective outcome. Therefore, it was “true.”
And, this is became an ongoing recollection of what I know. Not surmised. Not hoped for. Not believed in.
Know.
After that experience, my logic attached itself to my faith. My common sense led me to greater experiences, and, at present, my resolve on this matter is concrete.
No.
Solid steel.
Impenetrable.
As a result, my recollection of that event, began my journey as a mystic. I feel the realm offers “seeds” to all people, as I feel that all people have the propensity and ability to nurture that seed, along with the recollection of only one event, and become as asserted as I, and my predecessors, have been throughout history. The only difference between well-known mystics, and non-well known mystics, is that the former are willing to die for their seeds – and their recollections. Unfortunately, the latter seem to struggle with skepticism, and continue to either deny their own experiences, or allow those seeds to dissolve in a murky pool of theories by those who have no recollection of their own.
Therefore, I am certain that Plato, Socrates and all who have since attempted to impart wisdom upon humanity, would not mind if I re-phrased their collective statement:
“Humanity is not able to understand, and build upon, that which they have never recollected, and nurtured.”
Where are your seeds, Dr. Clark? Have you cast them aside? Or allowed them to dissolve….
As I said before, I agree with St. Paul’s New Testament claim that any gifts of the spirit are really quite meaningless without unselfish love.