(M.J.E. Spirit / Glossary / H - L)

Spirit Dialogues

Explorations of Spirit
by Michael Edwards

Front page: Foreword - Site Map
        A - B
        C - G
        H - L (this page)
        M - Z
    First dialogue -->


(Still under construction - some entries are still partly or entirely unwritten)

Go quickly to alphabetic sections with the following links (letters in bold, larger type are on a different page from this; smaller letters are further down on this page):

A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z

      Links to all entries in the Glossary follow now, with the entries for the four pages grouped separately. Entries for pages other than the present one are in bold type, and entries for this page are in normal (large) type.
      Notes on the perspective from which I wrote the Glossary can be found on the front page for the Glossary.

A - B

akashic - angel - The Apostle Paul - archangel - Archangel Michael - Ascended Masters - Ascension - Ashtar, Ashtar Command - astral plane - Atlantis - aura - Bivalia

C - G

channelling - Christ - clairaudient - clairsentient - clairvoyant - deva - dimensions (3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.) - El Morya - fairy - God - Ground Ascension

H - L

Higher Self / higher self - Hilarion - Hilarion, Lady - I AM / I AM Presence - Jehovah's Witnesses - Jesus - karma - Koot Hoomi - Kuthumi - Lady Hilarion - light / the Light - light-body

M - Z

Masters - Maya - mental body - merkabah - Michael, Archangel - nature spirit - New Age - Paul - Paul the Apostle - reincarnation - St. Paul - Sananda - soul - starseed - St. Germain - Theosophy

Higher Self / higher self
      [... description to appear later.]
      One of the
Masters. (If you came here looking for information on Lady Hilarion, read on. You need to know about the Master Hilarion first before you can follow the important things I have to say about Lady Hilarion.)
      Hilarion is sometimes identified with the Apostle Paul, although I also know people who regard him as a completely different being from Paul. However, those circles whose outlook has most influenced my recent spiritual life do seem to regard Paul as an incarnation of Hilarion; I don't take a dogmatic position either way on this, because I simply don't know if the two are one and the same or not.
      This does create certain problems actually, in that Paul, as related in various epistles in the Bible attributed to him, did stipulate a large number of rules for conduct which would appear to most people who believe in Hilarion as fussy and narrow-minded, and showing a bigotry against women. How these differences are to be reconciled, I don't know; but certainly the Paul of the Bible seems very different in outlook from the outlook of the Master Hilarion, as shown in various channelled messages from him. Perhaps the Bible wrongly attributes some of Paul's sayings to him; or maybe there are esoteric reasons for some of his teachings, which may seem petty and narrow-minded if you don't know those esoteric reasons.
      A simple example of this was given by the Archbishop of a small independent church I play the organ for, and it concerns the rule that Paul gave that women were not to preach in church unless no qualified men were available to do this - in which case they were to cover their heads as a mark of deference to men in the congregation (rules followed literally by Jehovah's Witnesses to this day).
      On the surface this seems outright sexism by today's standards; yet the Archbishop just referred to told me that this is a short-sighted view, and that there was in fact a reason for this rule. It was to do with the opposite polarities of energy that men and women are supposed to possess, and the reason for the rule was that women possessed a type of energy that suited them best for meditating during the service and energizing it in the right way, rather than for preaching, which suited men's energy better. (Jehovah's Witnesses, in following this rule, are probably unaware of this esoteric angle, and would in any case reject it if they did know of it.) (The same Archbishop, however, believes that this rule was valid only in its day, but not now, and he supports full equality for women, as far as being ordained for the clergy is concerned. This is because he believes we are now entering an era where women are to play more of a leading role in ceremonies than they were meant to in Paul's day.)
      I don't know what to make of this theory for explaining Paul's views about the more passive role of women back then; but perhaps it shows that we shouldn't be too hasty to judge matters whose inner reasons we may not be aware of. But at the same time I would hardly blame anyone who was unaware of such possibilities for thinking that Paul was simply narrow-minded and bigoted, or at the least very much subject to the cultural limitations of his day. I must confess there is much in the Bible that strikes me this way, and I do think some of this is likely to have no more reason than the narrow-minded attitudes of the day, although I concede the possibility that some of these ideas may have valid esoteric reasons I am unaware of. Still, in spite of such possible reasons, I find it very difficult to view the Paul of the Bible as even remotely like an exponent of the kind of New-Age spirituality that Hilarion is solidly a part of. Perhaps one day I will understand such matters better, and not have such a problem with it.

      Hilarion is of some importance to me because Sananda told me, via a channelled message, that I had worked a lot with Hilarion in Atlantis, and indeed had escaped with him from Atlantis during its third and final sinking, and that I still work with him today (although I am not aware of it).
      A strange coincidence that happened early the following year seems to back up this idea. I went to a weekend event given by a woman from Queensland who called herself Hilarion, because she regarded herself as a reincarnated aspect of the Master Hilarion. (She was sometimes referred to as Lady Hilarion, to distinguish her from the Master Hilarion.) A friend of mine with whom I had gone to the gathering took me to Hilarion and introduced me to her. Neither of us had ever met the other before; and yet, the very instant Hilarion set eyes upon me, she greeted me like a long-lost friend, put her arm around me, and told me that we had met before and that she knew me, and generally implied that we had a kinship. I can't honestly say I had the same feeling about her - but it fascinated me, because it did seem to back up the earlier message that said I had known the Master Hilarion intimately aeons ago, something that Lady Hilarion could not possibly have known about.
      Lady Hilarion was the person who told me that my Higher Self name was Bivalia, a name which I used for several years in the dialogues to represent my Higher Self. See Bivalia for a brief explanation of why I stopped using it, and the 9 December, 2000 dialogue (the first dialogue to stop using the name) for a more detailed discussion of this. It seems quite likely that Lady Hilarion's supposed connection with the Master Hilarion, and the message I had earlier been given about working with the Master Hilarion, together caused me to put more importance on the Higher-Self name Lady Hilarion gave me than I would otherwise have done.
Hilarion, Lady
      See Hilarion.

I AM / I AM Presence
      The phrase "I am", often written in all upper-case, as "I AM", is considered by some to have a mystical significance I have never quite understood. It appears that these people think there is something of fundamental importance in simply asserting yourself in this way, and it often seems to have overtones of identifying with God himself. It assumes such a position of importance with some people that whenever they write the phrase "I am", even purely in an ordinary context with no mystical overtones, they still tend to write it as "I AM", in upper-case.
      I do not do this, and do not in fact use the phrase. Since I do not see the significance of it, I think it would appear rather affected for me to copy this mannerism from other people.
      One's I Am Presence, as far as I can make out, is the same as one's
Higher Self, and I normally use this latter term. Some people appear to draw a distinction between one's Higher Self and one's I Am Presence - but I do not make this distinction myself. It's not that I explicitly deny any such distinction, but simply that I don't know what it is, and every time I've heard someone explain what the difference was, I couldn't understand it even a tiny bit, and it appears to go into very heavy metaphysics. I find it very difficult to take any spiritual idea seriously if those who believe it cannot explain it in terms that I, as a reasonably intelligent person, can understand. It's not that I deny the possibility of important truths really being very difficult to describe clearly (in fact, I explicitly believe that important truths are very likely to be difficult, or even impossible, to explain in words); rather, it's that, until someone can describe it in a way I can understand, I simply cannot see any way I can even begin to tackle the issue, to think seriously about it. (Another way I could begin to tackle an issue would be if I experienced it in some inner way, without anyone having to explain it to me - but that has not happened to me so far.)
      Because of this, the dialogues rarely mention the "I Am" concept, and there is no need for me to try to explain it here beyond what I've already said. Whenever you come across the term "I Am Presence" in the dialogues, you can take it to mean exactly the same as "Higher Self", and in fact very likely "I Am Presence" will appear in grammatical apposition to "Higher Self".
      If the distinction is important to me, I accept that I will come to understand it at the proper time.

Jehovah's Witnesses
      A rather fundamentalist branch of Christianity, best-known for their door-to-door preaching activity. They do not feature importantly in my life, or in the dialogues, and have not significantly influenced my own belief system or outlook; but they are mentioned from time to time because of my occasional involvement with them in the past, so I decided to give them an entry.
      Some of their key beliefs could be outlined as follows:
      Although God, Jesus, the angels, Satan, and so on are spirit beings, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe humans survive death: a human is in a sense his body, without an immortal spirit, and once a person is dead, he does not exist, except that God remembers everything about him. However, it is believed that, at a future time, most dead people will be resurrected, and their fate after that will depend on other factors.
      They do not believe in the Trinity doctrine: Jesus is only God's Son, not in any sense a part of God himself, and the Holy Spirit is demoted to something I find a little vague, but it is sometimes described as God's active force or spirit. Belief in the Trinity as most Christians understand it is to Jehovah's Witnesses a serious heresy.
      Their concept of God is strictly monotheistic, and they believe God's personal name is "Jehovah", and they work hard to promote the use of this name for God. Any God one worships or believes in is not the real God unless all one's beliefs about him conform closely to their own idea, which would in effect mean you were a Jehovah's Witness - in which case you would be expected to formally belong to their organization, and take part in their various activities, which they regard as ordained by God himself.
      Jehovah's Witnesses are regarded by themselves as the only branch of Christianity whose members will achieve eternal life; all those who are not saved will simply be annihilated for ever and not exist (in the case of the dead who are resurrected, after they have an opportunity to learn the faith and either accept or reject it). It is not good enough to be a Christian of any other sort, and in fact other Christians, especially members of mainstream churches, are rather condescendingly called "Christendom", not "Christianity" - with Jehovah's Witnesses, "Christendom" is never a term of praise. Jehovah's Witnesses believe their Governing Body is inspired or guided by God, although no claim is made that this body is infallible. Jehovah's Witnesses are all expected to devote time to door-to-door preaching on a regular basis.
      They believe in a very literal interpretation of the Bible, including all the miracle stories, stories such as Noah's ark, Jonah and the great fish, and the like. Only in a few cases do they accept something as metaphorical: for example, the Book of Revelation, the parable about Lazarus and the rich man, which clearly talks about intense eternal suffering after death (Hell, in other words), which clearly contradicts Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that only nothing occurs after death. In particular, they take a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of the creation of the world, except that the days of creation are regarded as long periods of creative activity on God's part, although this took place relatively recently in history (that is, thousands of years ago, not billions). As a corollary of this, they completely reject scientific views of life that contradict the Bible, especially the theory of evolution as conceived by Charles Darwin.
      They are millenarian, believing that the present order of the world is about to come to an end in the near future, in the Battle of Armageddon, after which there will be a millennium of prosperity, after which Satan will be released to finally tempt those whose faith has not been tested. The dead will be resurrected after Armageddon, and it is believed that only Jehovah's Witnesses, or the resurrected dead who come to accept their belief system, will survive into eternal life. After the final temptation, Satan will be destroyed forever, and those who are saved will live on a paradise earth for ever. This will be a purely physical existence, with only a special group of 144,000 preordained people going into Heaven to rule with Jesus Christ.

      I have been rather involved with Jehovah's Witnesses at a few times of my life (the mid 1970s, the late 1980s, and (briefly) the late 1990s) - probably as much as the result of loneliness as from being open-minded in investigating their beliefs. They are friendly and welcoming to strangers who show interest, so this perhaps explains why I became involved to some degree. Because of this involvement, I occasionally refer to them in the dialogues (and in general conversation on spiritual matters) to illustrate a point or draw an analogy; however, their actual belief system has not significantly influenced my own, which is almost diametrically opposed to their outlook and beliefs. Even at the height of my involvement (going to their meetings and doing individual Bible studies with Witnesses assigned to spend time with me on a regular basis), I never even slightly believed in their theology or outlook on life, although I was honest in trying to understand their point of view - I have always made a point of trying to be open-minded in considering new beliefs or spiritual ideas that intersect with my life, although I never try to pretend to believe anything I don't in fact believe.
Sananda - Jesus is sometimes regarded as an incarnation of the Master Sananda. The purely Biblical view of Jesus, taken in a purist way, does not feature a lot in this web site, or in my own spiritual outlook, which cannot be said to be Christian in any reasonably strict or literal sense - just as Jesus himself cannot, in my view, reasonably be touted as any kind of New-Age guru, although I am aware that many New-Age proponents attempt to so portray him. But the problem is that Jesus is quoted by the Bible as saying a great many very un-New-Age things. (Try the parable of Lazarus and the rich man for starters (Luke 16: 19 - 31) - one of the most horrific stories I know of in the Bible, and completely opposed to anything the New Age teaches, as I understand it - and completely opposed to everything about my own spiritual outlook. It is a favourite text quoted by strict Christians to back up one of their doctrines I find most odious of all: namely the idea that only true believers will be saved, and everyone else will suffer eternal and excruciating torments in hell.)
      While, in my own mind, I have half-accepted the identity of Sananda with Jesus, I am aware of the contradictions and anomalies, and do not pretend that I know how to reconcile them. Yes, I feel slightly uneasy about this, in view of what I just said that I don't believe Jesus can reasonably be portrayed as a New-Age teacher, and in fact Sananda's purported identity with Jesus is not of central importance to my perception of Sananda, although it is undeniable that the link with Jesus is influential enough on my own mind to give me a very Jesus-like image of Sananda, at least superficially.
      I suppose, if and when it becomes important enough to me, I will look into it further, and either reject the identity, or work out a way in which I can reconcile the apparent contradiction. But the fact is that any messages I've heard or read from Sananda are nothing like quotations that the Bible attributes to Jesus, and in some ways are radically opposite - such as, for instance, Jesus quite clearly preaching that those who don't follow his way will go to hell and eternal torment, something Sananda would never say. It's a telling example, because teachings such as this are the main reason I am not a Christian, and the main thing about the Biblical Jesus that repels me.

      The law of action and reaction; a kind of spiritual Newton's law which says that when any action is done (whether we judge it as good or bad, or don't judge it at all), some reaction has to follow at some point in the future which is opposite in some way, or complementary to it in some way - something which is supposed to restore balance. In human terms, it is often interpreted in terms such as, "If you do good things, then good things will come back to you later on (either in this life-time, or in a later
incarnation); if you do bad things, then bad things will come back to you later". The more sophisticated views of karma regard this process as more akin to inevitable laws of nature than to any divine force rewarding or punishing people for their deeds, although this distinction is sometimes blurred to some extent in many people's view of karma.
      This doctrine, which is from Buddhism and Hinduism, is often seen as central to the New Age, and is one of the few things that New-Age people rarely question, even though they may disagree about the details of its workings - such as, for instance, whether karma is determined by intentions, actions, or both.
      Although my own spiritual outlook is closer to the New Age than anything else, I do not claim to be a New-Age believer, because I have great difficulty accepting either the truth or the moral rightness of certain New-Age ideas; and the concept of karma is the main thing I have difficulty with.
      The dialogues spend many pages discussing my reasons for having difficulty accepting the concept of karma, so a brief explanation for my difficulty will have to suffice here. The concept of karma, often linked with reincarnation, is even more ambiguous for me than is reincarnation, and I have great difficulty arriving at an acceptable spiritual view that can accommodate karma, which in practice means accommodating the idea that spiritual powers may at times endorse, or even directly cause, appalling suffering for people - because, if people who believe in karma are asked why such things happen, they almost always attribute it to karma, as if that satisfactorily answers the question - which it most certainly does not, to me.
      But, because of the New-Age formative influence on my own outlook, and because the New Age takes karma just as much for granted as it does reincarnation, the concept is hovering around in the background of my own outlook, in spite of my difficulties with it. These difficulties are rather complex, and would take a long time to explain in full.
      However, the dialogues spend many pages discussing the reasons for the difficulties I have, so I will not attempt to duplicate my reasoning here.
      Because I find the concept far less acceptable than reincarnation, it would be safe to say that grappling with the paradox of karma has been one of the most troublesome areas of spirituality for me. And it does not seem to grow any less difficult with the passing of time; and so I have for the time being put the question to one side, trying not to judge it one way or the other, and I feel that maybe after some time, when I have a different (hopefully wiser) perspective on things, I may see the matter in a different light, and arrive at a better answer (whether accepting or rejecting the basic concept).
Koot Hoomi
      An older spelling for
Kuthumi, and seen especially in Theosophy, and in current sources much influenced by Theosophy. Although I play the organ for an independent church much influenced by Theosophy, who use the spelling "Koot Hoomi" for the Master, my overall outlook is not all that strongly influenced by Theosophy, so I have chosen to use the spelling "Kuthumi" found in the New-Age, channelling, and Ascension circles which have more directly influenced the growth of my spiritual outlook in recent years.
      He is sometimes referred to, rather coyly, it seems to me, as "Master K. H." in some of the Theosophical literature.
Kuthumi (sometimes pronounced, and even spelled, "Koot Hoomi" - sometimes pronounced "Kooth-oomi", with a soft "th" sound)
      One of the
Masters. The Archbishop of the church for which I play the organ (referred to in the entry for Koot Hoomi) has told me that the composer Johann Sebastian Bach was an incarnation of Kuthumi (or Koot Hoomi, as he would spell it), as well as other famous persons such as one of the wise men or astrologers in the Christmas story, Pythagoras, St. Francis of Assisi, and maybe one or two others. Some of these other identities appear to be widely accepted within the New-Age movement, but I cannot verify the identity with J. S. Bach from any source beyond the Archbishop who told me this; and I am not clear on where he got his apparently rare information. Therefore I cannot regard this link with J. S. Bach as entirely reliable; however, this identity is one that has influenced my view of Kuthumi, and this is discussed in one of the dialogues (15 October, 1994).

Lady Hilarion
light / the Light
      A rather vague term which is often used to represent variously
God, the forces of goodness, anything that helps or promotes the ultimate destiny of us all. Sometimes real (clairvoyant) light appears to be referred to (such as "sending someone light for healing"; and at other times the word appears to be purely metaphorical (such as "being aligned with the forces of light").
light-body (or "merkabah", in some sources)
      I find this a very difficult term to define, and don't understand the concept at all well, even though it is mentioned once or twice in the dialogues. At times it seems indistinguishable from other terms such as "
Higher Self", "soul", or "spirit"; yet at other times it seems to be something quite different from any of these. I sometimes suspect this term, like many New-Age terms, is defined in a variety of quite different ways by different groups of people. The term is sometimes found in connection with Ascension, and it appears to be that part of oneself which will ascend to a higher dimension, or which can leave the body during meditation or other altered states of consciousness.
      I'm really out of my depth here, and I think I'll leave it at that. I think this will be sufficient to give context to my occasional uses of this term. To some extent it is something I accepted on faith (or semi-faith, perhaps) from some other source, without fully understanding it myself.

Front page: Foreword - Site Map
        A - B
        C - G
        H - L (this page)
        M - Z
    First dialogue -->

This page created on Wednesday, 25 July, 2001, as part of a reorganization of the formerly one-page Glossary;
last modified on Saturday, 6 April, 2002.