1 in 3 of you believe in ghosts. Why?

As a child I was taught that it was un-Christian to believe in ghosts (and I note that Muslims don’t officially believe in them either). Yet ghosts were everywhere, in the sense that you could find stories about them in books, on TV, on the radio; and discussed in the school playground. Occasionally people turned up in the newspapers or on a nightly news programmes claiming to have had a ghostly encounter, but our rational society could never be seen to take such stories at face value – it was assumed that there was some ‘logical’ – i.e. physicalist or psychological – explanation. In the last 60 years society has in many ways become more secular, and perhaps less spiritual, but definitely more physicalist, with the rise of the new atheists like Richard Dawkins. It has become not just unGodly to believe in ghosts, but irrational to believe in something as non-physical as God. Academics, like myself, know that their intellectual credibility might well take a hefty blow if they admit to believing in anything other than the material. The word ‘myth’ which can be used to denote a narrative that expresses truths we understand at the deepest level of our being but find difficult to put into words, is now used most often to mean, simply, untrue.

So, despite this, why do 1 in 3 people in the UK believe in ghosts? Is it just a primitive hangover from the dark days before the Enlightenment? I’ve noticed that even the most rational people observe some irrational superstitions (often going to great lengths to justify their behaviour) and considering the millions of years human had to live without the scientific knowledge we now have to guide and protect us, it’s no wonder such superstitions are so deeply engrained, but it doesn’t of course guarantee their veracity. So when I had been very frightened by a ghost story I was always able to tell myself “but there’s no such things as ghosts anyway” and feel much better.

I could tell myself this even after I had seen one at the age of about nine, because I believed I had seen my guardian angel, not a ghost. (This, despite the fact that it even took on a classic ghostly appearance – misty white, see through and fading out below the knees. More on that later.) However, after my second in-your-face encounter at the age of 25, I could kid myself no longer. There were definitely ‘more things in heaven and earth than were dreamt of in our philosophies’. I had already been beginning to suspect that various occurrences which our prevailing materialist worldview had to tie itself in unseemly knots to explain could be accounted for quite simply if one accepted the existence of beings in other dimensions which occasionally intruded into our own. Call them ghosts, call them angels, call them faeries, call them jinn (genies), I decided to try accepting that there was a lot more to existence than usually meets the eye, or could be explained by science in its present state of development.

After all, nobody can disprove the existence of these dimensions any more than anybody can prove their existence to some-one who has not experienced them – and tested them – for themselves.

It always amazes me that people argue with such passion for and against the idea of purposefulness existing within creation and evolution, even in the most rigorous intellectual environs. Like the existence of other dimensions, you simply cannot prove or disprove either that the universe has a purpose or it hasn’t. The odds are that, if it has a purpose, it will be way beyond what we’re capable of understanding anyway. The arguments usually say more about the personal experiences, the hopes and fears, and the cultural background of the arguers. I have chosen to believe that a lot of things that seem accidental aren’t, because of certain experiences I have had and because such a belief seems to me to actually be more rational. Note that I wish to assert by adopting this position that I believe a non-physicalist outlook can be a rational, i.e. coherent and functioning one, just as well as can a ‘scientific’ physicalist perspective.  It has also turned out to be a better belief system for living my life more effectively in accordance with my other values. But an awful lot of questioning, research, and forensic investigation has gone into what I choose to believe now.

As a youngster I found it very frustrating that there were whole no-go areas where science would not, or could not, explain what was going on. It is no wonder that an enquiring brain frustrated by the limitations of physics will turn to metaphysics. The writings of the psychologist Carl Jung were extremely informative, and these in turn led to my reading up on Gurdjieff’s metaphysical system. I was told that this system was Sufi (the ‘mystical’ component of Islam) in origin, so I read Idries Shah. This in turn led to my discovering the metaphysical system of Vedanta (a mystical component of Hinduism). The joy of discovering these cosmologies, so complete and un-mysterious (despite the label of ‘mysticism’) and logical, and furthermore in broad agreement with each other, was great. When I came across Kabbalah, the mystical component of Judaism, I found a system that used western references with which I was very familiar having been brought up a Christian (Jesus being a Jew, which many people seem surprised to learn). This brought further intellectual understanding, and after a lot of thought and not inconsiderable testing of its principles, I decided to use Kabbalah as my guiding metaphysical belief system, (though note, I have a close friend who is a yoga teacher and uses Vedanta as her guiding belief system. We are in accord in our deepest beliefs.)

According to Kabbalah (and all the other wisdom traditions with which I am familiar), there’s not just one other dimension but several, not just one heaven but at least seven, not just one sort of ghost but several (though note that Jesus makes it very clear that we should have nothing to do with certain earthbound spirits.)In Kabbalah circles I have met people of undeniable intellect and good sense (traditionally, you can’t become a kabbalist until you’ve proved you are very well grounded in the physical world) who talk quite openly about their ‘ghostly encounters’. One senior Kabbalist, with a particular sensitivity to the dimension closest to our physical one, came to the group meeting one week and relayed how he had been in a fatal accident with a motorbike rider (fatal for the motorbike rider) who had followed him home trying to find out what had happened and what he should do now. Fortunately, Kabbalists know ‘what to do now’, a store of useful knowledge that has been largely lost to the so called rational world. As a result I get very cross with those programmes, mostly American and purely for entertainment purposes, where ‘ghost hunters’ go round stirring things up, insisting on earthbound spirits making themselves known (sometimes by goading them) and then just go away again, even when whatever entity is there has clearly asked for help. I hope that there will come a time, not too far in the future, when this will be considered abuse and made as illegal as bear baiting.

So, in accordance with Kabbalah, I choose to believe that angels are not dead people, they are a separate race of beings altogether with a very different purpose to humans. What I saw standing by my bed that night was neither a ghost nor an angel but probably a discarnate human being who was not earthbound and had a personal or assigned interest in me and/or my family, perhaps having a mission to achieve via us. In Kabbalah they are called ‘watchers’. ‘Ghosts’ are either the psychological remnants, which have not yet dissolved, of people who have themselves gone on to another dimension, or discarnate beings who have not moved on for their own personal reasons (for example, some not knowing they’re actually dead, others too frightened of what they might encounter when they move on, others too attached to people or things at the physical level to want to move on, etc.). Personally, I am also willing to entertain the idea that some ghosts are the ‘stone tape’ replays of events that happened in the past, those events being so strong in emotional terms that the physical surroundings absorbed them. These events will be sensed by some people in those locations when the conditions are right, and ‘re-seen’. (As far as I can perceive it, a wave of anger or grief is as real as a wave of the sea, and can have as strong an effect.)

I should add here that Kabbalah is not particularly interested in ghosts. Use of the Ouija board for example is considered to be the psychic equivalent of physically playing in sewers. An interest in certain aspects of the occult is dismissed as mere voyeurism. The aim of Kabbalists is to assist in bringing heaven down to earth, and anything that distracts from that is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, it remains a fact that my interest in the mystical stems precisely from waking up one night and finding a tall misty figure watching me from the side of my bed, reinforced by my second experience nearly a decade and a half later. Without this very personal evidence that there was more to life than the predominant physicalist paradigm which society currently adheres to, I would never have gone on my personal quest to arrive where I am now. And I consider that would have  been a great loss.

I puzzled over the ideas of ‘djinn’ (genies) when I first learned how strong and orthodox belief in them is in the Muslim world, given that a non- belief in ghosts is also orthodox. Considering how much our culture has imbibed from the Arab world, why don’t we have djinn in the West? But then I realised that of course we do. We call them faeries, and they have now got horribly confused with the little winged and child-like creatures represented by the likes of Tinkerbell in Disney films. I think we would understand a lot more about certain goings on in our own world if we strived to learn more about djinn/faeries. Again, Kabbalah is cognisant of other these ‘other races’ but considers them on their own paths back to reintegration with the Godhead, and only of importance to humans when they interfere with human destiny.

Over the past 35 years I have studied this whole area as assiduously, and as rationally, as I can; and I think I have reached the point when I can generally tell when something is a made up story about a ghost, when something might actually be a ‘real’ ghost of any of the varieties I have described above and, more lately, when it might be worthwhile to apply the concept of the djinn – some poltergeist cases for example.*

Why should I bother? Especially given that Kabbalah is not particularly concerned with such entities. Because I believe that when religion was far more common than it is now, people found the death transition that much easier. I think that our physicalist attitudes now are not only leaving people unprepared for death but, worse, leaving many deceased souls stranded where they really don’t need to be for longer than necessary. To do nothing about that seems to me to be simply cruel.

If you have read this far and are scoffing, simply remind yourself that there are, officially, no such things as ghosts, or angels, let alone faeries and nature spirits. At least until you encounter one……. then it may be reassuring to realise that this happens more often than is commonly admitted!

*I should include here, for those who are familiar with the founding of Findhorn, that I believe modern society has the original concept of faeries mixed up with the ‘nature spirits’ which act as the subtle counterpart to every species of plant-, a belief in, and communion with, these nature spirits an essential part of the Findhorn Foundation.

Adjusting the viewpoint

The following is an excerpt from an essay I am writing as an introduction to kabbalah and other wisdom traditions. This part deals with pysicalism - the belief that only the material is real- and scientism - the belief that material science can explain everything.

"The theory of evolution, and the identification by Darwin and others of the mechanisms by which evolution happens, resulted in a huge leap forward in our understanding of ourselves and our fellow creatures. We now understand that changes in an animal or plant that make it better-suited to its environment make that creature more likely to survive, mate and produce offspring who inherit its parents’ successful, though accidental, adaptation.

To a physicalist mind-set, those changes cannot be anything other than accidental. A creature doesn’t change to fit in better with its environment; a whole species changes because the ones who happened to fit in better with the environment were the ones to survive and reproduce. We casually talk about an animal evolving “to better blend with its surroundings” for example, but of course in a physicalist universe there is no intention, purpose or will initiating the change. It is just as likely that an animal changes in such a way as to stand out in its surroundings, perishes as a result, and never goes on to produce offspring.

But as the American philosopher Ken Wilber says “although natural selection can account quite well for 'microevolution' (or variation within a given range of possibilities), it can account not at all for macroevolution (or the emergence of new ranges of possibility).” Some of those ‘new ranges of possibility’ have been quite radical, and some of them, judging by the fossil records, relatively sudden.

For some of us this more importantly draws attention to the fact that the universe and all the creatures in it spontaneously change, and do so all the time, from when the first hydrogen atom mutated to produce helium , up to the changes going on in humans as I write. One might ask ‘why’ and the reply from a physicalist would be “it just does”. There may well be other universes where nothing ever changes. We just happen to be living in one that does. The question of ‘why’ is irrelevant. Why was there a ‘big bang’ at all? There just was. Why is the universe changing in such a way as to produce greater and greater complexity? It just does.

This cannot be disproved, but no more can it be proved. For some of us “it just does” has never been a satisfactory answer. And to paraphrase the 13th-century philosopher Thomas Aquinas, all physical things have to have a cause, something that precedes them in time and makes them ‘happen’, (time being a very real element of the physical world, usually proceeding from past to present and on to the future) so it must have been something non- physical that needed no prior ‘cause’ itself, to produce the first physical energy/matter.

Nevertheless, one of the world’s leading physicists - and physicalists - Stephen Hawking, has famously said that there is no need for a non-physical explanation for how the physical universe came into being. In his lecture at the California Institute for Technology in 2013, he stated, 'General relativity on its own cannot answer the central question in cosmology: Why is the universe the way it is? However, if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start. Small fluctuations in the initial state of the Universe would lead to the formation of 'galaxies, stars, and all the other structure in the universe.'

His theory, he says, could be tested when science develops the ability to detect gravitational waves by accurately measuring the distance between spacecraft. These waves originated in the earliest times of the universe and have not been altered by their interactions by 'intervening material'. He was also of the opinion that we would get to know more about the start of the universe as we discovered more about the vast amount of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ that we now know exists in the universe. He suggested that the idea of time running in only one direction 'like a model railway track' was misconceived and that combining of general relativity and quantum theory can allow time to act just like another direction in space. But his main argument rests on his view that before the physical universe was created there was no time, so nothing could have happened.

Again, this cannot be disproved any more than it can be proved at the moment, but it rather misses the point, (which is something that philosophers and physicists frequently accuse each other of!) I wouldn’t disagree for one moment with the physics put forward by such a formidable brain as Stephen Hawking’s, and I can see no reason as to why he should be wrong about how the physical universe came into existence, in as far as what the process entailed.

But what does it all mean?  Why is there any physical universe at all? Again we come back to the physicalists’ main response: there just is, there doesn’t need to be a reason or meaning.

The explanations I have heard from physicalists about how matter and energy came into existence without something prior (that, unlike matter, needs no cause) have always sounded to me more illogical, to say nothing of mentally messier and convoluted, than assuming that something of a different order to physicality brought them into existence. Better minds than mine have challenged the physicalists on their own terms – my favourite being a book by Rupert Sheldrake, a Cambridge University biologist, called ‘The Science Delusion’. (See also Malcolm Hollick’s ‘The Science of Oneness’ and Varela, Thompson and Rosch’s ‘The Embodied Mind’.)

Furthermore science cannot help us to decide how to live our lives; in fact many atheistic scientists seem, from their writings, to have no knowledge of either wisdom traditions or anything but some of the most infantile concepts of ‘God’. Ironically this also applies to religious fundamentalists. Sometimes one would think, from articles appearing in the popular press, that there is only atheistic physicalism on the one hand and creationism on the other to choose from.

Possibly one of the main dangers of ‘scientism’- the belief that science explains everything, that there is nothing more to existence than matter/energy- is the fact that scientists are trying to do the job of mystics. Having not studied physics beyond GCSE level, I would never presume to question those who have studied physics for years about their conclusions concerning the physical universe. Yet some physicists claim to have as much knowledge about the non-physical world as metaphysical experts who have studied and carried out experiments as mystics for decades.

But back to Stephen Hawking’s view that time could not exist before the material universe did. From their own experiences and application of logic, kabbalists and other mystics disagree. Before the physical universe existed there was time (and ‘why shouldn’t there have been?' to use the physicalists’ own most common retort), albeit time that followed slightly different rules. (The only analogy I’ll draw here is to say that physical time is like standing on the Earth watching the sun rise, ‘travel ‘ overhead and then set. If you were in fact standing outside our galaxy you wouldn’t be able to see the Sun doing any such thing – you’d only be aware of its movements in relation to other stars. Yet the Sun itself is moving in exactly the same way, it’s simply your perspective on it that has changed. Thanks to Eckhart Tolle for that analogy)

So to return to the main point, the wisdom traditions part company with physicalists by teaching that there is another universe causal to the physical universe.It is necessary to point out that, while some of us, like Thomas Aquinas, have reasoned that there is something prior to and causal of the physical universe,the cosmologies of many wisdom traditions come out of the personal experience of some very devoted people, as a result of their using techniques developed and refined over millennia, and as the result of spontaneous revelation. Studying the wisdom traditions consists of reading about their experiences and explorations, and of developing techniques to follow in their footsteps, as and when one is ready. Devotion, concentration and absolute integrity are needed in spades.

It is difficult to find the language to describe how one universe can produce another of a different order, but then it is also difficult to imagine a hydrogen atom spontaneously producing all the other types of matter that evolved from it, or matter somehow evolving into living things. At this point I can only liken it to an artist transforming existing materials into something completely new with the use of imagination and manipulation.

To quote Brian L. Lancaster: “These worlds are not worlds separated in space, but realms of reality underpinning our everyday world of experience.” "

Kabbalah for the Spiritual Pilgrim

Three Day Workshops in Hertford (UK) 

Kabbalah is the mystical teaching that underlies the Judaeo-Christian tradition.  Derived from the Hebrew ‘to receive’, it is an ancient teaching that offers a pathway to personal growth and self-knowledge.

The course is intended as a practical introduction to the ideas of the Toledano Kabbalistic tradition.  It is aimed at those seeking a spiritual path, or simply interested in exploring their spirituality.  Through understanding our place in the universe, we might find greater purpose in our lives and, thereby, a greater sense of peace within ourselves and with the world around us. 

The course is non-denominational and no previous knowledge is needed, only an open mind.  Each day will consist of a talk, discussion and a guided meditation aimed at illustrating and illuminating the theme.  There is no requirement to attend all three, but a working knowledge of Kabbalistic language and principles (covered on day one) will help in understanding the themes of days two and three. 

The course tutor, Adam Simmonds, has been studying Kabbalah for over 20 years. A teacher by profession, he has presented talks on Kabbalah in both the UK and Spain and co-directs a regular Kabbalah group at his home in Hertford.  

Course outline: 

Day One –

Saturday 1^st November, 10am-4pm

The Way of Kabbalah

An introduction to Kabbalistic principles, the Tree of Life, Jacob’s Ladder and the esoteric origins of Judaeo-Christian Spirituality.

Day Two –

Saturday 21^st February 2015, 10am-4pm

The Kabbalistic Journey – from Exodus to The Passion

How to approach scripture from an esoteric perspective, looking at how it can be used as a pathway to enlightenment without the overlay of religious dogma.

Day Three –

April 2015, day tbc, 10am-4pm

The Path of the Kabbalist

The inner world of Kabbalistic spirituality, the angelic realms, astrology and Karma, and the Work and Responsibilities of the Pilgrim’s Path.

Cost per day is £40 (£30 full time students) including a light lunch and other refreshments.  A deposit (non-refundable) of £10 will be required to guarantee a place, and a maximum of 10 places will be available.

The course will be held in Hertford (UK) which is approximately 50 minutes by train from London, Kings Cross and 5 minutes walk from Hertford North station.

Full address details on application. 

For further information, please contact:                Adam Simmonds on (01992) 55 44 65 or 07505478961      or e-mail: adamsimmonds@ntlworld.com

“Adam Simmonds is both a powerful and a natural teacher with a deep and authentic understanding of Kabbalah at all levels.”

                    (Maggy Whitehouse, author of Total Kabbalah and The Book of Deborah)

  Please feel free also to forward details to anyone you think may be interested in attending.

Spirituality and Politics

This is a difficult one for me.

My kabbalah teacher urges me and the others in our group to keep out of politics and political discussion, and concentrate on developing our own behaviours and attitudes in such a way that we become more generous, compassionate, disciplined, empathic, less greedy and fearful, and just generally more useful and pleasant to our fellow Earth dwellers.

For those of you who have not read my posts before, or need reminding, Toledano kabbalah (the form of Kabbalah that was developed in 13^th century Spain) has divided humans into three ‘classes’ – with names that I think are rather tasteless, but nobody’s thought up anything more appropriate yet. The first group of humans, by far the largest, are the ‘vegetable people’. These souls are content with enough to eat and drink, with adequate clothing and shelter, with being entertained, and having the opportunity to have children if they so desire, and they are keen to fit in with their 'tribe', e.g. their culture or religion. They are happy to be led, providing the leader does not cause them too much physical discomfort or alternatively, can offer a convincing promise of better times. When they don’t think they’re getting this, they may well form a populist movement to warn or overthrow their leaders.

The next group are the ‘animal’ people. These are the people who desire wealth, fame and/or power. Among them you find, for example, (not all, but a lot of) pop stars, business men and women, TV personalities, rabble rousers, people high up in religious hierarchies, teachers, and politicians. I’ve heard it said that if vegetable people are the pebbles on the beach, animal people are the waves that roll them about. However, people in the animal class are guided by the deep desires and aversions of their egos (their personalities). In a sense they, too, are the pebbles, and their egos (and ids, that is, their sub-conscious minds, fuelled by strong and ancient animal instincts) are the waves pushing them about.

The third class, the ‘human’ people, are those who are trying to free themselves of the control of their ids and egos in order to be able to see more clearly, to achieve glimpses of the bigger picture unskewed by ego fears and id impulses, and to act accordingly. It is probably still the road less travelled. Toledano kabbalists make regular visits to meetings where they recount their recent experiences to each other.  Others in the group are usually able to see if the ego is interfering in a way that a person themself cannot see. In my experience to date, this has never been a daunting procedure. I’ve not been in any group where somebody has taken a delight, or felt superior in pointing out to others something that has been overlooked. The prevailing culture is about mutual support for each other on our journeys. Nevertheless, I think that a person has had to have got through the ‘defensive against any suggestion that I’m not perfect’ stage before they can open to this in the most constructive way. I think you have to be a genuine seeker.

However, not all those aspiring to be human people are spiritual or believe in higher, nonphysical dimensions; many are humanists, for example.

There is another group with which I am closely involved and that is the Integral movement. Most Integralists are also concerned to act in the world from a ‘higher place’ than their egos, and that includes acting in politics, reasoning that this is what the world needs right now. Many people within the movement believe that the world will become a fairer, more pleasant and sustainable place for all to live in when we move beyond ‘left-right’ politics to something more, well, integral. Recently I’ve been part of some extremely interesting political discussions with others within the London Integral Circle (which I have to say have not degenerated into the ‘I’m right and you’re not’ slanging matches that I’ve been part of elsewhere.) And one thing that’s emerging is the need for a meta-political stance. John Bunzl, whom I know through Integral circles, and who also blogs for The Huffington Post, has set up an organisation called Simpol. To quote from their website:

“Simpol invites citizens around the world to use their votes in a powerful new way to encourage politicians to solve global problems like global warming, financial market regulation, environmental destruction, war, and social injustice.

Simpol offers us a way to take action on global problems; problems individual governments cannot resolve by acting alone.

That’s because these problems cross national boundaries, and because competition between governments to attract investment and jobs means the markets - not the people - end up calling the shots.

Governments cannot act alone to solve these problems because any government doing so would make its economy uncompetitive, leading to inflation, unemployment, or even economic collapse. Any government that moved first would lose out! While governments remain stuck, it's the markets that continue to run politics - not we, the people.

Simpol aims to break this vicious circle by encouraging people around the world to oblige their politicians and governments to cooperate globally in implementing appropriate policies simultaneously for the good of all.”

If you join Simpol, you are signing up to vote for any politician, wherever they are on the left-right spectrum, who will make a declaration of support for a process leading to the simultaneous implementation of a range of policies to solve global problems. The website contains the names of politicians who have already signed up to this pledge.

Naturally these policies (that Simpol advocate should be simultaneously enacted by all), have certain values embedded in them. It could not be otherwise. These values are based on the fact that, as humans have evolved and life has become more materially bearable for a lot of us (less nasty, brutish and short), certain values have developed as well, values that have perhaps made such evolution possible. These values are to do with 1) being able to cope with increasing complexity: evolution can be seen to be producing increasingly complex systems all the time, in both the natural and human made worlds; and 2) developing greater compassion and empathy for others, people who are not us, or not like us, not part of our ‘tribe’, or even part of our species. Those who have made efforts to become more spiritually developed repeatedly report back that the feeling of separateness we all have in our ‘skin encapsulated egos’ is an illusion. So are feelings of independence and dependence. We are all inter-dependent, and so it makes sense to develop and live by values that reflect that.

I hurriedly add that becoming more compassionate and empathic does not preclude preventing others from taking advantage of you. It is perfectly possible to ensure one’s own needs, and non- greedy wants, are met, and still be generous and tolerant of others. As Gandhi said, “there’s enough for everyone’s need, not everyone’s greed”.

In kabbalah the universe is said to be held in existence between two poles: ‘force’ and ‘form’. (‘Yin’ and ‘Yang’ comprise a similar model). ’Force’ is outgoing, creative, expansive, merciful and generous. ‘Form’ is structuring, curtailing, setting boundaries, disciplining, gathering in, and defining. Without this latter ‘form’, the universe would expand into chaos; and without ‘force’ the universe would just shrink into itself and eventually disappear up its own fundament. The work of a kabbalist is to balance these two poles. This cannot be done successfully without having first developed a perspective which has risen above the level of ego and id. Some politicians have done this, even if temporarily, and changed the course of history for the better in the process but, again, one’s own level of consciousness has to be developed beyond the level of ego and id to spot them at the time.

After writing the above, as I had reproduced material from the Simpol website, I sent it to John Bunzl for comment. He offered the further thought provoking observations:

 The need for a meta-stance, beyond simply going beyond the right-left dichotomy, is that, in practice, the left has all but disappeared from the political scene. Today, party politics is really just different shades of right. This, I argue, arises because of the free-movement of capital which, because it forces all nations to enact only those policies which keep the nation competitive and attractive to investors, means politics is squeezed into a broadly centre-right straightjacket. An effect I call pseudo-democracy: whoever you vote to govern, the policies delivered remain substantially the same. (Like Henry Ford’s ‘you can have any colour you like so long as it’s black’)

-          So the need for a meta-stance is actually two-fold: 1. To be able to see the above in the first place and to see why/how its occurring. 2. To devise a strategy for doing something about it.

-          Force and Form. These two energies are like dance partners. Each is vital but each leads the dance at different times as evolution unfolds. Force, it seems to me, is what economic globalisation represents: market competition, as a force has outgrown the Form of the nation-state and has now gone global. Absent Form at the global level, Force is pathological, as we see today. (Another way to look at it would be to say that the market economy embodies the masculine principle whereas cooperative governance embodies the feminine.) Either way, the masculine principle – Force – has, since 1648, led the dance to the point where, if Form doesn’t make her move to go global too and so catch up to balance Force, we’re in big trouble! Simpol, if you will, is a channel, an emergent possibility, for feminine Form (i.e. global governance) to emerge and take practical shape.

-          Spiritual Politics: To me, the underlying spiritual import of Simpol is forgiveness. When we accept that no one is really to blame for the global vicious circle we’re all embedded in, we truly see that we’re all in the same boat. We forgive ourselves and each other. We give up the ‘blame game’. Only by doing that can we reach a spiritual turning point in which truly inclusive global solutions might be envisaged: we take responsibility!”

To finish this post, I would say just this: Those of us trying to develop beyond our egos (“egos are wonderful servants, but dreadful masters”) refer to it as ‘the work’ and, as my kabbalah teacher said recently, it’s not called the ‘work’ for nothing. It is extremely hard work.

But the wages are good.

Reprise - 'Soul Midwifery'

At the urging of my better half, who found some of yesterday's post confusing, I've re-written it. He now finds it comprehensible so, if you read it before 23.30 yesterday GMT and didn't understand it, you should do now! (And hopefully I am, albeit very slowly, improving my writing style!)
See 'Soul Midwifery' or 'You Only Live...How many times?!'

Soul Midwifery, or "You only live...how many times?!"

It’s been a while since I blogged, and much has gone on. Last May I was wondering, now that I’ve retired, what I was for. (See the blog post 'But What Am I For'). Since then I have met a ‘soul midwife’. She works as a management consultant for a living, but in her spare time volunteers at a local hospice, working with the dying and their relatives. While the nurses take care of the dying patients’ physical needs, a soul midwife helps them deal with their emotions, thoughts, and/or spiritual issues, (not their religious ones – there are priests and ministers, imans and rabbis etc for that.) 

Those who’ve read my previous blogs will know that I’ve had personal experiences which have led me to believe that there is more than the physical dimension to life. In fact my experiences lead me to believe that the physical dimension is just the tip of the iceberg. Intellectually, i.e. thinking this through rationally, the existence of dimensions prior and causal to the material world seems to me to make perfect sense. Not that you can prove the existence of non-material realms to others from within the material realm itself. But you can’t disprove them either, so we‘re a bit stuck on the empirical front. Nevertheless, the empirical approach has served physical science so well for the last few centuries, it’s no wonder that physicalist-inclined people would like to apply it to the non-physical as well.

I have done some serious thinking about applying to become a soul midwife, and as a result I have also done some in-depth reading and re-reading on death, which has also led me back to the literature on ‘out of the body’ experiences. I started with the spiritual classics, those written by people with direct experience (mystics), which have been revived again and again down the centuries (the books, not the people writing them), and then onto books written by people who have recently actively experimented with out of the body travelling. Their descriptions of what they have discovered are as different as descriptions of the physical world by people inhabiting differing regions of it, but there are some aspects which seem common to all, regardless of where and when the experiences were written about, or the culture or religion of the person(s) writing.

The first seems to be that we have not just one body, and not just two – the material and the immaterial – but four. They're called different things in different traditions but I'm going to call them 1) the physical, 2) the psychological, 3)  the spiritual and 4) the causal. The psychological body is composed of your thoughts and emotions, and is sometimes called the astral body, and this is the one that I'm mainly going to talk about in this post. Note that the psychological body has a separate existence from the physical body. All four bodies exist in the same place, in the same person, but in different dimensions, which overlap. Furthermore, there are several planes or dimensions for the second and third bodies (the psychological and the spiritual) to move between. Of course, the ’bodies’ don’t actually move at all, it is the level of our consciousness that changes, like re-tuning to a different wavelength. The wavelength we are on most of the time is where the psychological and physical body overlap

Those who go ‘astral travelling’ have learnt to re-tune to the level of their psychological body without their physical body and, when their physical body is asleep, can stay conscious and move around without the aid of that physical body. (What people tend to see in this state however is the physical world overlaid by the psychological world, with the psychological world prominent so it looks a bit different to what your physical eyes see- this bit gets fairly convoluted to explain, and I refer you to one of the books recommended at the end of this blog.) It seems to be a fairly common experience that in this state you will meet up with other sleeping people wandering around in their psychological bodies. You can chat and arrange to meet up again but, unless those people are also consciously in their psychological bodies, they won’t remember a thing in the morning. You can also meet up with dead people still in their psychological bodies as well. In fact, if the classics and those who claim to write out of direct experience are right, you do this every night while you’re asleep (or in a coma) anyway. That’s not what your dreams are about though, or very rarely. Dreams are usually your physical brain rummaging around trying to process waking experiences. However sometimes you may bring back to your waking state rather distorted memories of a dream which touches on what’s happened to you in the psychological realm. There is usually a slightly ‘magical’ feeling to these dream fragments, even distorted as they are.

Those who have done it say that you can learn to stay conscious when you’re asleep with about a month of daily practice. I can’t say I’m attracted to this myself. When I was a child I used to experience the sensations which I now know are also the beginnings of a trip into the psychological realm, and as a child my instinct was to fight it and stop it happening. I think such fear is natural. I also now believe I’m in this physical body for a reason, and will only be in it for a limited time. Personally I don’t want to be too distracted while I’m physically embodied by haring off into the other dimensions (I really, really want to get the hang of this dimension.) I also wonder about the practicality of such adventures while regularly sharing a bed with somebody, or if you’re likely to be needed by a child whilst away, mainly because, at the slightest disturbance, you will snap straight back into your physical body. Of course, that’s a good thing on a practical level, but must be annoying if you were in the middle of something interesting in the psychological world.

I am however very grateful to those who have been courageous enough to go through with these experiences, and then talk and write about them.

There is widespread agreement among mystic sources that when we die the cord connecting our psychological and physical bodies breaks, leaving our physical body to dissolve back into its component parts for re-use. There is also something often referred to as an etheric substance, which has acted as the connecting medium for the psychological and physical bodies. This too begins to disintegrate when the physical body dies, but on some occasions this etheric substance can stubbornly cling to the psychological body. Sometimes the dead person does not want to give up this etheric substance, their connection to physical life. Sometimes it takes an act of will to shrug it off (not always), and sometimes some people just don’t realise they’re dead, which means the person's consciousness hangs about, not quite in either the physical or psychological world, and a little in both. (One wonders if this might explain some ‘ghost’ sightings).

The first truly psychological dimension from beyond the physical very much resembles the physical world, but your psychological body, as mentioned, is composed of your emotions and thoughts. So, though you are no longer encumbered by physical handicaps, illness, hunger, thirst, physical pain etc. you are just as encumbered with your emotions. If you were a prejudiced, bigoted person when alive this won’t change just because you’re dead, as David Staume so beautifully puts it. And another across–the-board point of agreement is that the heavier the emotions you’re carrying, the closer to the physical plane (i.e. the ‘lower’ in the psychological plane) you’ll stay. Furthermore, like seeks to like here; you’ll be surrounded by others carrying the unpleasant heavier emotions. By ‘heavier’ I mean emotions like hate, jealousy, greed, arrogance, envy, anger, guilt, remorse and so on. One analogy I’ve read is that it’s like your heaviest emotions drift to the exterior of your newly exposed psychological body, blocking the light and weighing you down. It is said to be extremely unpleasant – hellish even. But in fact it’s only purgatory. Unless a person is extremely determined to hang on to their negative emotions, rebuilding and reinforcing them, that heavy outer cladding will eventually wear away, leaving the person free to float up to a lighter place within that first psychological plane, and be with equally light people, where they can prepare to move onto an even more refined psychological plane. There seems to be agreement that there are seven psychological planes in all (it's difficult to tell if that 'seven' is a factual number or symbolic of something), most of which, once you’ve divested yourself of your negative emotions, could be described as ‘paradise’. When you’re bored with them, and have suitably refined yourself, you’ll shed your psychological body and pass on to the first of the spiritual ‘heavens’ in your newly revealed spiritual body. Some extremely evolved people have managed, with inside help, to get into one or more of these paradises and heavens while still alive, and stayed conscious enough to be able to talk about it on their return, but all agree that it is a very difficult experience to put into words, and one mostly has to use analogies, metaphors, symbols etc. Others, after a lifetime of dedicated spiritual practices, remember their own time between lives, which brings us to the topic of reincarnation, on which even Christian mystics are agreed.

Some people don’t get very far through these planes at all before being swept back down into the physical plane and another physical body by karma, or by their own longing to be embodied again, for sheer physical pleasure or for the sort of further development that only being embodied physically can provide. (Two of my sources, but only two, state that some people never incarnate in a physical body if they don’t have to – they consider it just too unpleasant and demanding an experience! The rest of us, it seems, are like, well yeah, go for it!) But even though it takes several hundred, if not thousands of physical lives to get the experience to develop fully, all the sources seem to agree it’s worth it, because beyond the psychological and spiritual dimensions is the causal dimension, blissful beyond description. (Also described as ‘arriving back home’)

But back to where I started this blog. In our materialist world many people don’t start to think about what’s coming after death, if anything, until they’re quite near it.  Some people naturally get very frightened by the thought of dying (and some are just relieved). There are ‘helpers’ just on ‘the other side’ waiting to come to the aid of anyone who will let them, but apparently these helpers often have a hard time getting through to people who, coming from such a materialist world where physicalists reign supreme, have no idea where they are, or why, or who simply refuse to believe what they are experiencing.

However, I have come to the conclusion that if people do not know about all this until they're just about to die, it could be very daunting. Ideally, people could know about this and think about it for themselves long before they reach that stage. Soul-midwifery goes with whatever beliefs the dying person has.

So I think I'll continue trying to communicate all this only to the still-very-much-living. Undertaking soul-midwifery demands a different set of knowledge and skills, and I have already undertaken development in some of those earlier in my life,  so considering applying for the relevant training is still on the table.

Your thoughts and comments are more than welcome, both about soul-midwifery, and about the metaphysical worldview set out above. (It’s actually very difficult to add a comment in the boxes below for the purpose, but if you email me your comment at  helenjdavis1955@gmail.com  . I’ll cut and paste them in.)

If this topic is of interest to you, I'd recommend you read 'The Beginners' Guide for the Recently Deceased' by David Staume, and 'Adventures beyond the Body' by William Buhlman.

PS: Apparently, it's still possible to have sex without having a physical body....

I Despair....

It was in the news this week that  Stephen Fry the actor, comedian, raconteur, author etc. tried to commit suicide last year, because of his depression. He is the President of the charity ‘MIND’ and, in that capacity, felt it was important to talk about what happened. There is still a lot of shame, mystery and misunderstanding generally about the condition, and he hopes that the more the whole subject is brought out into the open, the better the situation will become.

For sufferers, and no doubt many others, depression is a miserable subject to talk or hear about.  When I was urged to attend a self- help group with other depressives, I simply couldn’t bring myself to do it. The thought of spending a whole evening with other people suffering like myself was too much. But it does help to read about other people’s experiences, and to know that one’s own experience is not unique.

However, I think it’s even more important to have non-depressives understand the condition. I am an ‘endogenous’ depressive which means that, even though life can be going swimmingly with everything I ever hoped for, I will experience bouts of depression, because of the way that chemicals in my brain seem to have been programmed, or perhaps wrongly  programmed.  (Exogenous depression, as opposed to endogenous, is caused by external events, such as a death in the family. One in four people will experience endogenous or exogenous depression  in their lives.) 

Recently a friend who I had known for some time accidentally made my condition temporarily worse when she heard I was having what I call a ‘flat’ day (with life feeling as if it has no meaning, but is just one long struggle). I think she thought that my depression that day was down to the situation my husband and I are in at the moment, with him having been made redundant and searching for another job (it wasn’t, it was just those chemicals not behaving as they ought again.) In an attempt to cheer me up she told me about a friend in a much worse position, somebody who had just discovered that her husband had stage four cancer. I know her intentions were good, but endogenous depressives like myself have very porous boundaries, in so much as we’re not always sure where we ‘end’ and other people start. So this other woman’s agony became my agony, and life seemed even more of a meaningless, painful struggle.

One night, 25 years ago now, before I knew that what I was suffering from was depression, I had an experience of this ‘boundary porosity’ that nearly did for me. My baby son had very bad nappy rash and had woken screaming in the middle of the night. I took him into the bathroom to wash and change him when I suddenly had a vision of all the women, both then and down the ages, who had heard their children screaming and couldn’t do anything about it. I saw mothers in famines with starving babies, mothers having their children wrenched from them by soldiers….it was all over in a second, but literally knocked me backwards against the bathroom wall, so overwhelming was the despair.

I thought I was probably going mad, and it’s only now that I know that depression isn’t just severe sadness, it’s more to do with extreme fear and hopelessness, the sort of fear that leads to despair; and it’s to do with a porosity of boundaries (see above) that means that one is trying to cope with the ordeals of the entire world.

My search for ‘God’, for meaning, is probably born of an even more instinctive need for self- preservation, coupled with an intuition arising from my own experience and intellectual reasoning that the materialists who dominate our modern culture seem to be overlooking and dismissing whole chunks of reality in a way that doesn’t make sense. (For more on this see my post ‘Betwixt and Between’.)

Like many people with endogenous depression, I suffer from other ailments, which doesn’t help. I have a heart problem which means that I have to take tablets which worsen the chronic fatigue I suffer because of my Fibromyalgia. For a long time my GP thought that I didn’t have ME or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Fibromyalgia; she thought that my lack of physical stamina was purely a result of my depression. It has been suggested to me that the depression is actually a side effect of the Fibromyalgia/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, but I am fairly sure now that I was born with depression. I know of lots of people with this sort of confusing diagnosis and, believe me, it doesn’t help!

My brother once remarked that it’s depressed people who see the world as it really is- that is, unpredictably and potentially horrifying, and that it’s ‘normal’ people who have been born with rose- tinted spectacles that screen out this awful truth. Scientifically we know now that it’s not rose- tinted spectacles that keeps the majority of humans struggling on, it’s serotonin and, although I’m against testing on animals in general (especially for cosmetics) I bless day and night every  animal who died to help produce paroxetine without which, I’m very sorry to say, I probably wouldn’t have made it this far.

As always, I would love to hear the views of others. Lots of people find it difficult to make the ‘comments’ box below work, so please feel free to email me at helenjdavis@hotmail.co.uk with your observations, which I will reproduce below.