Psychic Defense

Hello Richard, what is your opinion on Archons?

When searching, I found Nag Hammadi studies by R. McL. Wilson.

This study makes comparisons and relationship with other, older texts. I did not find anything extraordinary in these texts, though, and the Archons and Angels to which the text refers to are just different labels for deities in other mythologies or cosmologies. I would not treat this text literally, but I agree that self-defence must be well thought through before we pass, and there are no real experts on this topic - a common belief is that there is always an expert, like a doctor, who would provide them with a solution on anything, but this is the road to nowhwere.

Hi Richard,

I've heard this story on a podcast Robert was on. But only how he invited it in and how he got rid of it. I was completely unaware that "the boy grows up with the neg still present." Rather unnerving I'd say! I know there is stuff our there, but like Zoe says, it is based on frequency. Hard to know if you can't see them though, and I am sure there are tons of negs out there and we all have things trying to attach (or are attached). I try not to think about it too much!! lol But I do try to see them as pretty unconscious, not necessarily purposely malignant, just living how they know how, like any parasite. I am sure there are many more well versed on this topic so looking forward to the conversation.

Cheers,

Sorcia

From what you wrote it seems like intuition was another (separated) identity having its own mind?

I'll sum up very shortly conclusions from my observations:

• energy can and do change (transform), e.g. from physical to etheric, from etheric to astral and so on, and in the opposite direction as well (I learnt that sticking to old hermetic idealistic views on the subjects, such as the concept of manifestation, is overly simplified and doesn't reflect actually what happens), and the process is about changing frequencies

  
  

• there are entities who can do this at will, they even do not have to change their own frequencies to affect other (e.g. lower) frequencies, they can "produce" an energy on a different level than they exist, i.e. they are masters of energy manipulation

  
  

• the physical world (energy "frozen" in the material form) such as ours is all about energy and mind manipulation, created for reincarnation system - again such as ours, controlled and manipulated, making an illusion of free will; the main goal for reincarnation system is to make a certain changes in psyche/consciousness in the incarnating people

  
  

• the entire universe is about playing with consciousness, and all the endeavours that are taken (although we are basically unaware of this fact) could be summed up as changing, shifting to/from and manipulating consciousness

  
  

• physical world could be in a way viewed as a trap - for consciousness, part of which is perception and memory

In the end, I'll again refer to what Robert Bruce wrote in his Astral Dynamics about the mind, which is objective point of reference. Keeping being objective and summing up the bare facts about the reality, without much philosophical or religious attachments, should lead to breakthroughs in discoveries about the knowledge and meta-knowledge of the universe on all levels. I think one of the biggest obstacles is that people keep believes "why" the system such as ours exists and why was created, or keeping strong believes on absolute things which we have no idea about at all, such as god (as a personal deity, often unconsciously personified in their minds in the way that simple people from the ancient and medieval era did), to me it is just a concept (i.e. should not be treated literally). The main obstacles include scientifically-oriented views and religiously-oriented views, in particular for the common esoteric fields uncritically believing in a variant of old Hindu karma and reincarnation concepts. I think that we can build up knowledge in many ways, using many paths, and not limiting ourselves to just one, which always would be a single-sided knowledge, e.g. uncritically believing in what perception brings to us (this includes naive approach to extra-sensory perception as well, which - to be brutal - never proved to be the ultimate source of references so far AFAIK, most often rather an effect of manipulation of the person; this includes very skillful clairvoyants in history) or, on the other hand, science in the current form.