I grew up with a clairvoyant sister. I am 34 (almost 35); she is now 30. She is still clairvoyant.
My sister currently lives with a fella whose family runs a funeral home. He has primary responsibilities, she assists. Some time ago I asked her if she was
"still clairvoyant," which isn't something that's always easy to discuss, even with family members (or especially so, depending). She confirmed it, and we talked about it a good bit.
Earl's put his finger right on it, in my understanding, Yo. What my sister indicates is that typically the
stragglers, so to speak, are precisely that. They've not
returned, it's just that they've become attached, and never left. The best movie I've seen that deals with various kinds of attachments is
`Ghost,' with Patrick Swayze, Whoopi Goldberg and Demi Moore (
et al). I don't just think this is
kind of like how things are, I believe it quite close to Gospel!
My sister describes the
basement of the funeral home, where the embalming is done, as a very
chilling place, psychically. Regardless as to actual temperature (which may also be quite chilly), the place is "soooo cold," as she describes it. It's her
least favorite part of the work she does, and one of the aspects of her clairvoyance which doesn't particularly thrill her.
More times than she can count, she has witnessed (dead) people, just
standing there, looking at their bodies. She describes them as very angry,
very, very upset about what they see happening to them. And can we blame them? Our society is so terribly materialistic, right down to an
obsession with corporeal life -
even to the excessive, extreme denial of the spiritual - that we will literally
stop at no end (if arrangements are not made otherwise) to PREVENT that which is
inevitable, natural and presumably God-ordained. Why is this?
So, these poor people, who literally
do not realize that they are even dead (sounds silly, you'd think they'd have figured it out, eh?) ... are quite upset, that they are having to witness their
body, right there before them, being embalmed. Frankly, it kind of gives me the willies ... but it has also given me much to ponder since my sister disclosed this. Probably these people are not regarding even their own (post-mortem) situation with quite the objectivity, and outside perspective, that my sister has.
I don't know, for example, if they really
objectively see the inert, unsouled mass of flesh in front them (for what it now is), or if, instead, their perceptions may be
filtered (even in the immediate afterlife?
You bet!!!) by what they are still
trying to see, and accomplish. That body, remember, represents the
last remaining shred of what - quite clearly - was their OWN, God-provided
vehicle for communicating with the outer, physical world ... for their 3-score & ten, or whatever.
One poor man, whom I take to be an
extreme earthbound, is sometimes over in one corner of the basement, and my sister,
who has seen dead people and astral phenomenon for her entire 30 years, says he "scares the bejeebers outta her!" ... as she goes up the stairs. I mean, here's a person (my sister) who can deal with the whole
Sixth Sense thing, 99% of the time, but when it comes to this poor, old man, she really just can't cope. She says he simply
stands there, with a deep, deep scowl on his face, and he doesn't move, and he doesn't say a word. Instead, if my sister moves around, like when she goes upstairs to leave, he just stands there motionless, and
follows her with his eyes, all the while still scowling.
It's hard to imagine a worse case of someone
clinging who doesn't need to, but just doesn't know how to let go! And this is why
Spiritualism, the early to mid 19th Century movement which popularized
seances, mediumship and
spirit rappings (which the skeptics claim are
all faked), was really a Godsend. I think it helped open doors, and break through a scientific materialism which had just gone
overboard with its insistence on
strict, provable, empirical evidence - and a denial of
all things supra-physical.
And while certainly there is a downside, or a shortcoming to some spiritualistic practices (both for mediums,
and for people who are
delayed in their afterlife progression by
well-intentioned family members who want
"one last visit") ... I feel that even a show like John Edward's
`Crossing Over' cannot be over-appreciated! And YES, I believe in him, and his abilities (as those of a
James van Praagh)
100%!!! (Why shouldn't I, I've sat next to clairvoyants, co-experienced their abilities, experienced some of this for myself, and even induced it - naturally - within others.
What's not to believe!?!)
But Yo, as for
what motivations "demons" might want for haunting, or obsessing children, I think there are lots of possibilities. As for ghosts, or spirits of the deceased, the simplest explanation is that we're not dealing with demons at all, just
ordinary people - of all backgrounds & walks of life - who recognize in thus or another
young person that there is still the
openness and susceptibility which earl has described. Sometimes, I think children (and certainly pets) can perceive
quite directly and literally denizens of the astral plane (deceased or otherwise). Other times, even when there is not literal
perception, or clairvoyance/clairaudience, there is still an
awareness, and this would possibly fit your son's case, earl.
Since I
do believe in demons, I think you should keep directing our discussion, Yo, and see what we can turn up. If you've ever seen the movie
`Golden Child,' with Eddie Murphy, there's a wonderful
depiction of what, sort of a "grand demon" might be like. Eddie Murphy calls him affectionately (and sarcastically)
brother Numsey ... and is a bit horrified late in the movie when this white, upper-class, urban
gentleman, turns out to be not just a
sorceror of moderate means, but literally a
foul, hellspawn, flying demon, temporarily clothed in human form.
And of course, like so much else in life, truth turns out to be
stranger than fiction ... but I do tend to think that Hollywood exaggerated this one a wee bit by way of
special effects.
Anyway, I'd say that the
least of the demons are mere
thought-forms (or
egregores, as Thomas calls them, after
Eliphas Levi's classification) - works that are entirely of our
own creation! These simply desire -
unconsciously and without anything like an independent willpower - their own preservation. If they can find expression through children, who are still
sensitive to the astral plane (owning to reasons that earl has already mentioned), then at least it perpetuates their existence. This is really just
self-preservation (and thus not evil, as such) ...
Cycles of
violence, and various addictive behaviors, are examples of this on a larger scale, yet since children are particularly susceptible to strong emotions, we are truly dealing with a form of
demon possession in something as commonplace as domestic violence, alchoholism or even verbally abusive families. We cannot attribute the vicious cycle to an evil source
outside of many of these contexts, such as a demon in the more conventional (or Hollywood) sense,
but what else are these malicious thoughtforms (Humanity's
own creations), if not
"evil" and
"demons?"
I think a more enlightened future will better recognize, and
"exorcise" this problem. But this is only one manifestation, or example, of
demons, and my own finding is that the stuff we see - once Hollywood gets ahold of it - is
a far cry from the truth of things. The closest we really come is the
latest trend, which has taken the cheesy, gory, campy cult classics ... to whole new levels, thanks to
more, better special effects, and especially digital editing, or
`CG' (Computer Graphics).
And still, all we are doing is beginning to
tap some of the most intense emotions associated with fear:
horror and terror. If anything, these are the
medium of expression, and
modus operandi for the more malevolent demons, yet here we can actually learn much from Eddie Murphy's comic references to
brother Numsey. If you've seen the movie then you know,
the latter was not a rabid, frightening, unthinking
beast (not till the end, anyway), acting without motive or strategy. He was usually exceedingly calm, collected, and quite cunning - even unperturbable were it not for our
hero's epic abilities. And as for
what he wanted with young children? Well that's what the movie is about!
Golden Child, in which
brother Numsey has the little, "buddha-midget kid" kidnapped ... the more I think about it, the more I think it holds exactly the answer you might be looking for, Yo!
(It leaves me wondering, have you seen the movie, and if so, had you considered this, relevant to your posts & question?
)
Do I really believe in the premise of it all, and that
there are actually malevolent beings/persons out there, who truly oppose God's Plan, and will stop at nothing to stand in the way?
I wish I could say no.
But do I think children,
who surely come into this world each a living testament to God's Love and to human innocence ... are children
really at the mercy (spiritually speaking) of evil demons, and negative influences
willy nilly? Not for a moment! I believe in karma, and Dharma (Purpose), and in a Loving Design that takes everything, and everyone, into account.
Not a sparrow falls ...
~zag
