In several posts more recently, I’ve spoken a bit about light beings. What may be called angels, devas or whatever. I’ve also spoken about the two ways of seeing the world: as laws of nature and as being done, with energy as a form of life.
This is a tricky area as our culture has a lot of “noise” in this arena. Shows about disembodied spirits and ghosts, fantasies, and so forth. People who have the occasional experiences jumping to rather curious conclusions.
Studies reveal that a surprising number of people have had experiences of light beings at some point. Yet our culture largely rejects such ideas and considers people talking about them loony. Or consider the subject spooky or scary. The boogey man.
Some other cultures have rich stories of non-physical beings but they’re often laden with cultural trappings and beliefs. Some modern teachers even write off such experiences as “mythic”, belonging to a bygone era. Thus, it’s hard to make good sense of it.
There’s a few issues at play.
A few random experiences are hard to verify or make sense of. Is it imagination or?? Like past lives and some other stuff, it’s only when it’s more complete that it’s easier to cross-check. In the meantime, it can be caught by ego stories.
Secondly, subtle perceptual stuff is personalized. Because it has no physical nature, it is more like dreams and we tend to clothe such experiences in our expectations. Because a light being is made only of energy, we may be more comfortable with the experience if we give them a physical-like form. They ‘float’, for example, so must need wings. The film “What Dreams May Come” explored some of this.
Again, somewhat like past lives, a clear authentic experience will not show up like a dream but rather will be a surprise, have unexpected elements, may include physical-like sense experiences like touch, and may draw out strong emotions. While we may be personalizing them, it is consciousness that is creating the experience so it can go well beyond something that we could dream up.
Finally, “seeing” is relative. Some people feel, hear, sense or have a knowing experience. Seeing may develop later.
In Really Conscious, I talked of how the body may be seen as full of life, every cell a hive of activity, your finger a bustling city of life. This is a bit more developed perception I gave as an example. It’s not that the body is inhabited by some entities. The body IS the entities. They are the life that is creating and maintaining your body. We’re talking about expressions of oneness, working as a team to create the appearance of you. And we’re talking of one way of seeing. Biologically is just as valid but being able to have a conversion with your liver could help in healing.
The creepy comes from fears out of a sense of otherness, ideas of scary. There is no otherness here. They are a part of you. Do you see your thoughts or feelings? But you don’t find them spooky. At least not usually. 😉
Understanding such experiences requires further context. I describe waking in 3 stages. Self realization, God realization and Unity.
These first and third* are highlighted by distinct shifts but are dominated by a process not unlike before the shifts. Clearing the ego story, resistance, and identity. The shifts themselves are in who we know ourselves to be. First a shift in who we are internally, then with unity, a shift to the same externally. (although it’s no longer “external” if there is no division)
The middle shift is more a process of refinement. The clarity and depth of perception. Sometimes it begins long before waking and it continues indefinitely. Because of the breadth of existence, the scope of refinement can take more than a lifetime offers.
Personalization is added to by what we bring to the table and what is seen and unfolds in what sequence. For example, one person may begin to be able to see the energy of the physiology first. Another auras. Another light beings. Another the structure of creation. Different resolutions and energy sets depending on what is more opened and refined.
What people see or experience is often strongly influenced by a few other general factors as well.
Because of our western orientation, many people are not developing deeper refinement until after unity. They reach God Realization later. The refinement is taking place more slowly, so such perceptual stuff happens later in the game.
The yoga or path they are on also influences perception. Someone on a more pure intellectual path will be more focused on God as impersonal, Brahman. They may never even consider angels. People on a heart path are much more likely to explore this stuff as they’re moving through the heart, feelings. Feelings are life energy.
And because it’s personalized, we may simply resist it until well down the path. Even if we have experiences, they may not develop if there is no comfort factor.
On the other hand, it can be about what consciousness wants to experience. However out of context it is or resistant we are, sometimes God shows up anyway. (laughs) It may take a while to get used to such things, to learn to trust.
But, just because something shows up doesn’t mean we should give it heed. For example, in North America anyone with a British accent is considered more “classy”. Yet the person may be from a lower class area of Britain. In the same way, just because they’re made of light, check references first.
Are such experiences a necessary part of the journey? Nope. Will everyone have such experiences? No. Are they important? No.
In some ways, it’s like visiting Paris. A nice place to visit. Will it make a difference in your life? Maybe. Does it matter if you never visit? No.
Of the people I know, far more people are awake than have reached God Realization. For many, this stuff is just beginning. It seems to me that the longer one is awake, the more likely such experiences will unfold.
The main reason I write about it is for those who are having such experiences. So they have a sense of where it’s going. And so they know it’s normal. And becoming more so. (laughs)
*[Addendum: In this post, I suggest God Realization doesn’t have a distinctive shift. This is an intellectual error discussed here.]