Visitors' Questions during July 2003

This page will be revised at the beginning of each month.

The following are Hai's and other spirits' responses to miscellaneous questions recently posed by visitors to this web site or by personal visitors to our home. If you would like to ask a general question please complete the Question Form or post it in one of the Web Board's forums. If you have a question of a more personal nature please see the Consultations Page.

Hai: Yes this breaks our hearts.

Q: Was this the incident you were concerned could happen?

Hai: No we did not think this would happen particularly, but you know there may be other instances because of the feeling which is generated between the peoples of the other countries.

Q: The war does not seem to have solved very much.

Hai: No, war does not solve anything, but creates other wars, other infringements as others see it, which then must be rectified and this therefore is how it goes on. One sees an infringement against their side and does something to respond and then another sees an infringement against their side and so sees a need to respond and so it goes on. There is no understanding in this process. We must create a situation where there is a break brought into this process which will enable true dialogue to occur, true reconciliation to occur to a point where people see each other with human eyes, as human beings who are worthy of love and respect, are truly brothers in spirit. And so therefore there is the motivation, the wish, willingness, to bring about change, to bring about true dialogue, true reconciliation.

Q: The conditions in Iraq seem awful with the sewers breaking down etc.

Hai: Yes, they are possibly going to be worse off than the conditions under which they formerly lived, at least in terms of the day-to-day living standards.

Q: And if they become ill and disabled that will be worse won’t it?

Hai: Yes this is the trouble. What is the use of freedom if you have lost your mother, your sister, your brother, your son or daughter. Will this gift of freedom reconcile you to your loss? I think not.

Q: Do you think Tony Blair will survive all this, Hai?

Hai: No, not in the long run, but what does survive in the long run?

Q: What do you think the main intentions were in war? Was it about oil or religion?

Hai: Well, there is a mixture of motives as always in these situations, a mixture of purposes, a mixture of intents, yes. So there is no easy answer to your question. For as your question implies there is perhaps this desire for wealth, for oil, but there is also truly a desire to bring about freedom. But we would question that even if this intent to bring about freedom is genuine, is the manner in which it is accomplished appropriate? Is it of good means, of good purpose? Because it may create other problems in its wake. It may cause other conditions to arise.

Therefore, as we have said in the past it would have been better if the help had been enlisted of those countries who share a common culture, common language, common religion with this place called Iraq, to work with them in long term, even though it would take longer to bring about change in conditions, change in circumstances of these people of Iraq. You cannot create freedom like you can pour milk into a jug. This does not work. It is a more subtle process than this, is it not? It is difficult process. It is educational process. It is a process, which requires desire from within, not imposition from without.

Q: The problem though with trying to change it from within is the danger that would bring those who want to change.

Hai: This is true. This is true. But I would say again, if you create freedom with force then you create something on top of your freedom. You create other problems, which you must wrestle with, which you must reconcile in some way. There have been many dictators, many tyrants down the ages. They have generally got their come upance when they have reached out, they have expanded the realms of their empire. They have gone beyond their own borders and have been brought to task by other nations. This Iraq is a difficult situation, but it was better to leave the chemicals to bubble away for the right occasion, for the seeds of revolution, of change, were bubbling away.

Q: So do you think it would have happened anyway?

Hai: Yes it would have happened anyway. Because you have come from outside to bring something to the inside you have brought not only freedom you have brought your occupying forces, you have brought your culture, you have brought your agendas, or agendas as perceived by others perhaps. But whether they are right or wrong their perceptions will create consequences, will serve as if their perceptions are correct, are just, are true. Therefore you have now created a lot of baggage for yourselves because of this route, this map that has been chosen. And now this must be put right, must be rectified. It is important to withdraw from this position as soon as possible less the sore begins to fester.

Q: Could the world leaders not have foreseen all this?

Hai: Well the trouble is that people may foresee certain things yet they do not foresee other things. And even if they foresee them they think: "Ah well, we have to do it anyway."

Q: They haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction yet.

Hai: No, he big bluffer. He’s a good poker player this Saddam Hussain. He’s like emperor of China without the armies. He thinks himself like an emperor of China; act like emperor of China, yet there is nothing behind the silk.

Q: Why did he behave as though he had things to hide?

Hai: The game of poker it is not best served by saying to the other person: "I do not have any aces, I do not have any kings, and I do not have any queens." You see my point?

Q: Were the emperors in Ancient China special spiritual people?

Hai: No, not generally. There were some who were more adept in matters spiritual. There were some who were more interested in matters temporal. There were some who patronized the Buddhist temples, the Taoist temples and so on to great degree, yes. But they did not all do this and they were not all interested in equal measure with the spiritual side of life.

Q: Were the emperors especially chosen?

Hai: Well it was like you have had in your history also. It was a matter of chance; it was a matter of the powerful seizing power at their opportune moment of time to seize power. Yet there were these dynasties planned and designed to take on the control of the country over time also, because these set up dynasties of power that prevailed over time, yes, their families kept power within their bounds, within their grasp. So it was a mixture of things. There were insurrections; were those who sought power and seized power; those who were already powerful and wished to have more power and yet there were others who also wished to have this power. Therefore there were wars over who should succeed as emperor; who should have the most control of the country. This has ever been the way, the petty ego getting in the way.

Q: I always thought spirit would have more control over who was born into these positions.

Hai: No, no for even if someone said: "I want to be born into this position of power for I know best, I will be good son of virtue. I be benevolent master, I be chaste king." Yet when they have their hands on the reigns of power then there is a change in them. So you see first minister say: "I don’t think you are right my liege, my king, my emperor." Then he say: "So you think that do you? Then we shall have your head off." It is a lot easier this way is it not than arguing the toss over the point?

Q: Some people do love arguing purely for the pleasure of it though.

Hai: But I speak of humane civilized discussion, argument, where someone have legitimate point of view which should be listened to. But there are those with mighty egos too big for own boots, who do not listen easily, who wish to have things their way, who wish to decide for themselves. Therefore they are not interested in listening to civilized discussion. Yes there are those who like to argue for arguments sake but this is different situation.

Monks in monastery sometimes like to argue for arguing sake yes. So this becomes some kind of game to see who can win. This is not good also. This is not deriving truth, this is about who can play cleverest game to win.

Q: So nothing's changed from your day to now, Hai.

Hai: No, human nature remains the same. But it may be that the same human nature may reach the peaks of Everest, yes or the depths of the inner caverns of the earth. So it is a marvelous thing this human nature, which is capable of such variety of achievement.

Q: Shouldn’t we all have to have a turn of coming back as someone in power?

Hai: Well it is true. There is much to be learnt from coming back and having power, of having the responsibility of having control. There is much to be learnt from this. It is an acid test. Yes, a bitter test sometimes. It is nice you see. You become a powerful figure; you become a head of state, yes. You look at coin of land, coin of realm and see your head, your family on the coin — one test is how you respond to this. If you look at coin of realm with big head on coin and you grin like Cheshire Cat then you fail test perhaps, yes? If you look at same coin of realm and the response is: "Well yes so what, then perhaps you’ve passed the test.

Q: Did people sometimes suddenly come by a lot of money in your day, Hai?

Hai: Well yes, generally by ambushing someone on the road. This is not without its dangers because the most lucrative ambushing on road carried the death penalty.

Q: Not like winning the lottery then?

Hai: No — though it could be a lottery as to whom you rob on the road. You could rob worthless old monk with no pennies.

Q: I used to sleep walk and talk when I was younger. Do you have any knowledge of the subject?

Hai: Well it is just because you are like in a dream, yes? You converse with those in your dream and your body may act out what you are thinking about, what you are conducting in your dream. It is like the physical senses have not shut off. Most times when you all dream you have your inner dialogue in you mind and you see all manner of strange things, all manner of colours, all manner of discussion. But yet your physical body to a point is disconnected from this; not totally by any means, but to a point and in your case your body is less disconnected. And so your mind, your brain, triggers these movements, these responses to what you experience within your mind. It is just a simple matter of connections being triggered or not triggered and the extent to which they are not triggered.

It’s like a dog you see. A dog lies in front of hearth, leg twitches, ears twitch, because it has a dream, but it does not start running around the room. But you are like the dog that does go running round the room, for your body's connections are not disassociated from the dream process as is the case for some of the time when you dream and as is the case for others who dream.

Q: What is the meaning of recurring dreams, especially fearful ones?

Hai: Well these recurring dreams sometimes reflect concerns within your mind, aspirations, hopes, wishes, fears, anxieties, depending upon the nature of the dream. You must think about the situation, think about thing which comes to you with fear. And if you take the image which comes to you, what you must do is rewrite the story. So you take image, which comes to you in dream, and you think of this image that comes to you regularly in dream with fearful associations and you create some positive thing, some happy thing, some hopeful thing. This will undermine the anxiety within your dream image. You must rewrite the story, rewrite the script.

Q: You mean change my way of thinking?

Hai: Well it more changing the way of automatic thinking in your subconscious mind and you can work upon it with your conscious mind by feeding in a positive image, a positive feeling, a positive hopeful message, yes. This is the way to defeat repetitive dreams which are troublesome.

Q: If a clairvoyant predicts someone’s demise could that be a fact?

Hai: Well it might be a fact. It might be that they pick up the approximate duration of this person's life and their demise. But we must be careful not to hang on the words of psychics, because as many psychics can get it wrong as get it right. This is not a useful occupation to speculate on the duration of a lifetime. It’s not helpful to anyone. Therefore you create another ruler, yes. The person thinks: "Oh, I have good long time left." Years pass and he thinks: "Oh it’s getting nearer." The mind becomes preoccupied by the message given. So they get to sixty and they are in state of nervous agitation. Then when they are eighty and think back to their sixtieth birthday they think: "Oh, they got it wrong." But every year that has passed between sixty and eighty they think: "Oh, he may have been out a bit, is this year the year?" This is not helpful. This is destructive most times. It is of no consequence. Whether we live for a day or a hundred thousand days is of no consequence. If we can but truly live for one day, a lifetime’s work is well done.

Question of the Month

A member of the circle who was already aware of a previous life in the 16th century asked Hai if he would tell her how many lives she’d had since then. This was Hai’s response:

Hai: Well I say to you, you have lived a thousand lives since you have first put foot on this earth this time. Each new day is a new life to a point, yes? This is useful to look at it this way: new day, new start. Do not carry baggage of old life. People do though you know; they carry baggage forward. They carry baggage forward from one day so they have one knap sack on their back. Then they get to next day, they put another knap sack on their back. Then they have another day and before they know where they are they are crawling on all fours with all these knapsacks. It is better to put aside these knapsacks: fresh start, new day, each day.

Q: People often ask about the stages of evolution and think that each time we come to earth we are better than the last. I’ve tried to explain that it is not like a ladder.

Q: People think that those who steal, take drugs etc, then they must not be as evolved as a person would not do those things. They do not seem able to grasp that the pattern of evolution is not always consistent.

Hai: Well you must teach them. You must advocate to them that they must love all persons without exception, without judgement. For when we speak of universal love, harmonious unconditional love, then this is what we speak of. We do not say: "Love everyone, except him down the road." We do not say: "Love everyone except he who does this." We say: "Love all without exception." For in this love there is redemption not only for those who love but for those whom are loved. For if you felt truly loved, truly loved, would this not nourish you? Would this not make you feel so valued that you, in your turn, would value others; would respond to this love, this miracle of love, yes?

For those who talk to you, who speak to you of ladders, of stages, then I would say this to them: That you have attained true wisdom when you can climb the ladder without rungs. When you have learned how to climb the ladder without rungs then come back to me and talk of stages. This is "one flash" inspiration, not to be conjectured over, not to be talked about on logical plane.

Q: When we talk about loving everybody people often appear to agree, but it often seems that they automatically assume that the person less fortunate than themselves is often also less evolved than themselves. This often makes them seem condescending with their love.

Hai: Well this is not love. Love is not doing things to people. Love is recognition. It is like what you were speaking about before you came up here tonight. It is like you were speaking about a realisation, yes? A realisation of the Nature of all things, Nature of the universe and the Essence of life. You speak of this, yes? (We had been talking about the Buddhist ‘Enlightenment’ before our sitting) Well is it not this also? Is it not like a recognition of a person, of their worth, their value, of their sacredness, of their uniqueness, their essentialness? Is it not this rather than doing something to them? It is that we recognise them for what they are and we respond to that recognition, yes? It’s like water flowing down hill yes? Water flows down hill naturally because of hill, so it is like this with our love. That, if we recognise the person for what they are, we see them for what they are, in their essence, then we respond with this love like the water running down the hill.

But yet to get to this point we must be without attachment. We must be without ego. For if we have not managed to put aside our own preferences, our own choices, our own prejudices, our own assumptions, you will not be able to respond so freely as this. But in truth is not love like this, as I said? It is a response, recognition of the person who stands before us without conditions, without judgements.

Q: People find that hard to do unless we can give them examples.

Hai: They find it hard to do because they cannot put aside themselves. This is why they find it hard to do. Putting aside ourselves is a hard lesson, a hard action to do. This is what we must learn. This is our main lesson, which we must learn on this plane and others: that we must put aside ourselves. And in putting aside ourselves we find ourselves. In putting aside ourselves we reveal ourselves. Therefore this is what we must do.

Q: Perhaps the only people we really do that for is our children and we don’t always do it for our children either.

Hai: This is true, but within the family you are afforded many opportunities to learn to put aside the self; for the good, for the benefit of your children, your partner yes? But it is true also, as you say, that some do not succeed even in this. But if we cannot do it for our loved ones who are close to us, how easy will we find it to do it for others who are in the world. Yet in truth we should learn from this experience with our partners, with our children, our families. Learn from this experience and reach out to broaden our perception, our perspective of others who live in this world; to learn to give to them in a similar way. But as with all things, some learn from these experiences, these situations, opportunities, some do not. It is the way of it.