Spiritual Telepathy   -- An Original Article By Karl Loren

I have some considerable philosophical interest in "communication" that can and does take place independent of a body. 

You COULD call those "spiritual" communications -- I would rather just call them "non-material" communications -- that is, not dependng on the physical universe for origination, receipt and understanding.

Here are some of my thoughts on that subject. They are presented in contrast to the usual interpretation of the story in Genesis, the Bible, about the Tower of Babel.

The Tower of Babel is depicted, most famously, as an actual structure to be built by people of the country of Babylon, some thousands of years ago.  These were people who, apparently, believed they could get to heaven using materialistic approaches.  They, presumably, had lost their spiritual path toward God, and thought that if they all spoke the same language, they could understand one another easily, cooperate on large projects and become very successful in their efforts.

They also felt that they could "reach" heaven by simply climbing high enough into the sky.  No matter what we may think about "heaven" there is hardly anyone, or any religion, that now suggests that you can reach heaven by going up in the sky -- far enough up! 

Today we don't think of space rockets as physically reaching heaven -- perhaps only because we have already reached billions of mile "further up" and found only things that we recognize as stars, etc., and certainly not "heaven."

But, the Babylonians felt that they had great skills in communicating, because everyone spoke the same language.   These skills in communicating would allow them to work on and complete the building project of the Tower Of Babylon.

According to Genesis, God didn't like this idea and scattered the people over the earth, and made them speak in many different tongues. Thus, they could not understand one another, then could not work together on a project, and the Tower failed, as God intended it would fail.

On the surface this God seems pretty vengeful.  Even when you understand that the Old Testament shows God as a God of Vengeance, you wonder about this one.

Here is the story, right out of the Bible, as criticized by Thomas Paine:

THE TOWER OF BABEL

The story of the tower of Babel is told in Genesis xi. It begins thus: "And the whole earth [it was but a very little part of it they knew] was of one language and of one speech.

"And it came to pass as they journeyed from the East, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick and burn them thoroughly, and they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.

"And they said, Go to, let us build us a city, and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

"And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded.

"And the Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

"So [that is, by that means] the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off building the city."

This is the story, and a very foolish, inconsistent story it is. In the first place, the familiar and irreverent manner in which the Almighty is spoken of in this chapter is offensive to a serious mind.

As to the project of building a tower whose top should reach to heaven, there never could be a people so foolish as to have such a notion; but to represent the Almighty as jealous of the attempt, as the writer of the story has done, is adding profanation to folly. "Go to," say the builders, "let us build us a tower whose top shall reach to heaven." "Go to," says God, "let us go down and confound their language."

This quaintness is indecent, and the reason given for is worse, for, "now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do." This is representing the Almighty as jealous of their getting into heaven. The story is too ridiculous, even as a fable, to account for the diversity of languages in the world, for which it seems to have been intended.

As to the project of confounding their language for the purpose of making them separate, it is altogether inconsistent; because instead of producing this effect, it would, by increasing their difficulties, render them more necessary to each other, and cause them to keep together. Where could they go to better themselves?

[Karl Note: In this I certainly disagree with Thomas Paine -- as man loses these simple mechanics of communication he becomes MORE isolated from others, and less likely to work harder to keep together!  There IS a path toward better communication, without language, described below.]]

Another observation upon this story is, the inconsistency of it with respect to the opinion that the Bible is the Word of God given for the information of mankind; for nothing could so effectually prevent such a word from being known by mankind as confounding their language.

The people, who after this spoke different languages, could no more understand such a Word generally, than the builders of Babel could understand one another.

It would have been necessary, therefore, had such Word ever been given or intended to be given, that the whole earth should be, as they say it was at first, of one language and of one speech, and that it should never have been confounded.

The case, however, is, that the Bible will not bear examination in any part of it, which it would do if it was the Word of God. Those who most believe it are those who know least about it, and priests always take care to keep the inconsistent and contradictory parts out of sight.

-Thomas Paine

I do not apologize for the cynicism of Thomas Paine. He was the person, you may recall, who published "Common Sense" -- the English of those years was so different from the crude speech of today.  Here is what Thomas had to say in his introduction to "Common  Sense:"

Introduction to Common Sense

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right of it in question (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as the King of England had undertaken in his own Right, to support the Parliament in what he calls Theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either.

In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion.

The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested.

The laying of a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censures, is the

THE AUTHOR.
Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.

P.S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a View of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to refute the Doctrine of Independence: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is now presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such a Performance ready for the Public being considerably past.

Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.

You can see that Thomas Paine was particularly a man who would favor a common language, [by standards of that day] so that man could more easily communicate with man -- and arrive at honest and logical conclusions -- based on common definitions for words.

Above you read the scathing criticism by Paine of the story in the Bible -- the story of the Tower of  Babel.  You might well think Paine to be an atheist.  I don't think so.  My evidence simply goes to an excellent article that you can read by clicking here.  In that article there is a quote by Paine:

"The word of God is the creation we behold ... It is only in the creation that all our ideals and conceptions of a word of God can unite.

The creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech, or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read.

It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other.

It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.   Source

This quote not only shows Paine's religious viewpoint, but speaks in a much broader sense to my theme of "spiritual telepathy."The basic on any form of communication must be that which exists.  While "harmony" may well exist, there can and is disagreement on what that might be.  But, once you have observed a "tree" and another has observed the same "tree" -- there can only be one common communicative concept for THAT tree. 

Whether that concept is pronounced "treeee" or any other utterance of speech, when it is uttered meaning THAT tree, people can come to agree on a common utterance, if they wish.

When man utters the word "harmony" and tries to define it, he runs into all sorts of difficulties, and you realize that man is, thereby, trying to communicate about something which is not objective -- which is non-physical == in other words which betakes itself of spiritual characteristics, including "good" and "bad,"  "right" and "wrong."Definitions of words are often tricky things. 

Pronunciations of words is harder to see as harmful, but it is even more basic:

Santosh points out that in the English language the letters "ough" can be pronounced in no less than nine different ways. "A rough-coated, dough-faced, thoughtful ploughman strode through the streets of Scarborough; after falling into a slough, he coughed and hiccoughed."  [Source]

If I say the phrase to you, "John is a good person," you know obviously that I have used the word "good" in some sense that would be very hard for you to understand in exactly the same way I do.

If I say the phrase to you, "That person there is a MAN," you know with some certainty what I mean.  You don't know if I speak the truth, but you understand the apparent meaning to differentiate between the male and female sex of a person.

So, Thomas Paine preached that all that God had created (the physical universe, at least) was there to be observed by anyone, and within that observation lay the path to valuable communication -- that communication whereby one man understands what was communicated by another.  As Thomas Paine would say, "There is a tree," and you would look and understand that the utterance "tree" was related to the physical object being indicated -- a tree.

Again, in this context, Thomas Paine could be a very religious man, believing in God, but definitely NOT agreeing with the story in Genesis that God would deliberately DECREASE the ability of man to communicate with one another.

I think there is a deeper meaning to the story, the Tower of Babel, as well as a much deeper understanding of the concept of communication than what  Thomas Paine saw.

I personally believe that there is a path toward spiritual enlightenment, and that this path ultimately cannot depend on mere material steps. 

There must be an early recognition, when you are following this path, that concepts that are not much material, such as "good" and "bad," or "right" and "wrong," must ultimately have some way of being understood with just as much precision as two "men" can understand the utterance of "tree" as meaning the physical object -- tree.

It has been the job of philosophers to define such words -- as did Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, for instance: Here is a bit of Aristotle to chew on:

[1214a][1] The man¹ who at Delos set forth in the precinct of the god his own opinion composed an inscription for the forecourt of the temple of Leto in which he distinguished goodness, beauty and pleasantness as not all being properties of the same thing. His verses are:

Justice² is fairest, and Health is best,
But to win one's desire is the pleasantest.³

But for our part let us not allow that he is right; for Happiness⁴ is at once the pleasantest and the fairest and best of all things whatever. About every thing and every natural species there are many views that involve difficulty and require examination; of these some relate only to our knowledge of the thing, others deal also with modes of acquiring it and of acting in relation to it.

As to all those views therefore that involve only speculative philosophy, we must say whatever may be proper to the inquiry when the suitable occasion occurs. But we must consider first what the good life consists in and how it is to be obtained--whether all of those who receive the designation 'happy' acquire happiness by nature, as is the case with tallness and shortness of stature and differences of complexion, or by study, which would imply that there is a science of happiness, or by some form of training,

[20]

 for there are many human attributes that are not bestowed by nature nor acquired by study but gained by habituation--bad attributes by those trained in bad habits and good attributes by those trained in good ones.

Or does happiness come in none of these ways, but either by a sort of elevation of mind inspired by some divine power, as in the case of persons possessed by a nymph or a god, or, alternatively, by fortune? for many people identify happiness with good fortune. Now it is pretty clear that the presence of happiness is bestowed upon men by all of these things, or by some or one of them; for almost all the modes in which it is produced fall under these principles, inasmuch as all the acts that spring from thought may be included with those that spring from knowledge.

But to be happy and to live blissfully and finely may consist chiefly in three things deemed to be most desirable: some people say that Wisdom⁵ is the greatest good, others Goodness⁶ and others Pleasure. And certain persons debate about their importance in relation to happiness,   [Source]

I won't continue to quote Aristotle, nor try to explain the above, but you see here one of the most famous men of history explaining his concept of "right" and "wrong."

Now, with all of this background, see if you can follow me down MY path of explanation.

Man, occupying a body made of meat, mostly "communicates" by uttering sounds from his body, and more advancedly, writing symbols (letters, etc.) on paper to convey what might otherwise be uttered.The obvious problem here is that man certainly includes some characters who are evil, or who intend hidden harm.

They say to you, "This green drink is very good for you," and you watch their eyes and mouth closely -- the words are simple and you understand them. 

That understanding of what the words might convey is certainly NOT communication when and as they say this phrase to you with a strong hidden intention to deceive you.

Man's utterances are easy to hear (in a physical sense), even if not easy to understand.  But, man's intentions and true feelings are very hard to fathom! If EVERY time someone spoke to you, you could "look" into him and tell, with certainty and consistency, whether HE believed what he was saying was or was not true -- what an advance in communication that would bring.

It would be pretty difficult to establish, or agree on some "absolute universal truth" that you could judge any utterance by.  But, if you could only know whether the person speaking, himself, believed in the honesty of what he spoke -- what a boon that would be to understanding and progress in our society."Love" is often judged by such communications.

I personally believe that anyone can greatly increase his ability to judge such matters in the communications of others, and that ultimately, man, with or without a body, can communicate to other individuals (located in bodies or not located in bodies) in such a way that every communication is capable of being judged, instantly, as to whether the originator, indeed, believes what he communicates to be the truth.

In such a society one could, indeed, lie if he chose to, but with "spiritual telepathy" anyone would immediately perceive that the communication was somehow "dishonest."  In such a society dishonesty would die out very, very quickly. 

Else, those who continue to try to communicate that which they do not believe, -- those people -- would be never listened to.

They would be banished from the common group.  There would be no need of punishment -- other than marking such a person as not to be communicated with, one way or the other.At first there might be many people who are "cast out" of the honest group, but they would soon find that they are constantly communicating to others, none of whom they can trust, and that group would dwindle and succumb to the rigors of survival.

There will come a point in our history when civilization is on the way UP rather than down.  We will mark the point of the change, from down to up, when more and more of us recognize the hidden evil intentions of others.

Would you like a clue? Well, find a person who, when he talks to you, cannot possibly look you in the eye.  This is not a 100% accurate test, and I know the exceptions, but it is a generally useful test. 

Many of us know, instinctively, that the man who cannot meet your eye has something "going on."  You may not know what it is, but you know there is something. 

You might not much consider that a "spiritual" insight, since it is dependent on the simple physical observation of where they guy's eyeballs are pointed. But, behind that observation, and the conclusions you draw from it, there is a world of non-material explanation.  As you advance spiritually, you will greatly increase your ability to "see" the honesty in someone's communication. 

At some point you will realize that you have left material explanations for this ability far behind. While it may be very difficult to arrive at a common definition for the word "drug," with this advanced spiritual ability you can immediately discern whether the person communicating with you about some substance (whether it be Prozac, or Life Glow) is being honest in his communications.  "Does he, himself, believe what he says is true?"

I, personally, believe that no person can describe the "good benefits" of Prozac with honest intentions.  Somewhere there must be an awareness in anyone that a substance is, in fact, harmful.

I succeed in my business to a large degree because I am 100% honest in my communications to you!  I believe what I say to you to be true.  You cannot ask for more from any being!

You will be on the edge of "spiritual telepathy" where your "thoughts" are conveyed, in a narrow beam for the one other being you intend to get the message, and that being (not at all dependent upon a body) will perceive not only the "meaning" in your message, but the honesty of the sender who is sending the message.

Wouldn't that be a grand position to be in? So, with this in view, perhaps God, in the Tower of Babel story, saw that man was going to a greater and greater reliance on "utterances" and getting away from the original state of innocence and honesty, where communications, whether by utterance or telepathy, were honest and never included hidden harmful intentions.

Surely the morality of man has dwindled since Eden!

I think so!

Karl Loren spent many dozens of hours researching and writing this page. He is not a "student of the bible" but approached this subject with his usual research and use of logic.

He is anxious to hear from you if you have read this far and have any comment to offer on this article.

If you missed it, you can go to either a SHORT explanation of the whole story, or a detailed explanation on ONE PAGE.  On this page you are getting more detail on one part of the story, but on either of those pages you can get the broad picture.  Don't miss reading one of them.  You can actually spend many hours on this web site, depending on the depth of research and reading you want to do.  There are an amazing 4,000 pages here -- more information on these general subjects than almost all other web sites combined!  At some point along the way you will probably say, "Karl's crazy," and leave never to return to this site, or you will say "I want to try some of that oral chelation formula he writes about!"

I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message

Dear Karl,