Customer Reviews

The Secret Life of Nature: Living in Harmony with the Hidden World of Nature Spirits from Fairies to Quarks

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Nearly a hundred years ago, two Theosophists, Besant and Leadbeater, using their yogic powers shrunk their perception down to a subatomic size , and recorded accurately the inner structure of all the known elements of the time- from hydrogen to uranium. Developments in quantum physics have now confirmed their results. But, say Peter Tompkins, the world of science continues to look away. We spoke to Peter about his new book The SECRET LIFE OF NATURE. His book also contains other similarly astonishing revelations, including the existence of a spiritual hierarchy here on Earth which counts fairies, gnomes, devas and angels among their number. Since the clairvoyance that saw into the atomic structure of matter has proved to be correct, must we also accept the further conclusions of the siddhi vision of the Theosophists and others -- that we share this planet with the nature spirits once consigned t o children's storybooks?

What sort of reaction have you had to your book, which is fascinating and well overdue?

This is an example of what I'm up against in England: it's from THE NEW SCIENTIST: 'In THE SECRET LIFE OF NATURE, Peter Tompkins uncovers tales of astonishing psychic phenomena, and credibility-stretching accounts of fairies and nature spirits, buy any illusion of objectivity is spoilt with his revealing epilogue -- "Clearly the cure for both the planet and our souls is one and the same, initiation to clairvoyance eventually for one and all. " Possibly bonkers but still worth the admission fee.'

If THE NEW SCIENTIST has that opinion of clairvoyance, and yet the intelligence agencies are using remote viewing to find out what the Russians are doing, we're up against the fact that the scientific establishment just won't look.

your BOOK SHOWS THAT THE Theosophist CLAIRVOYANTS, Leadbeater AND Besant, ACCURATELY PREDICTED THE ATOMIC STRUCTURES AND BEHAVIOR OF ATOMIC PARTICLES, AND DESCRIBED EVERY ELEMENT DOWN TO THE SUB-ATOMIC LEVEL EVEN BEFORE SC! IENTISTS KNEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF SOME OF THEM. these ARE FACTS THAT ARE ONLY NOW BEING REVEALED by the most modern developments in quantum physics. Why hasn't this been more widely publicized?

The reason is very simple. When the Theosophist's book OCCULT CHEMISTRY came out a hundred years ago, none of the scientists had ever seen inside an atom and therefore they hadn't a clue. They said it looks very pretty, but what is it? There was no way to validate it, and it wasn't until Dr. Stephen Phillips (a professor of particle physics ) found an old copy of OCCULT CHEMISTRY by Besant and Leadbeater in Los Angeles that any proof could be adduced. Phillips counted the quarks, and saw that the Theosophists had the correct number of quarks in every element, and the last quark was only discovered in 1997 -- the proof of it is self-evident. They knew that they were actually seeing something that was exact.

'The excuses for disbelieving the claims of psychics are irrelevant in the context of their highly evidential descrip5ions of subatomic particles published in 1908, two years before Rutherford's experiments confirmed the nuclear model of the atom, five years before Bohr presented his theory of the hydrogen atom, 24 years before Chadwick discovered the neutron and Heisenberg proposed that it is a constituent of the atomic nuclei, 56 years before Gell-Mann and Zweig theorized about quarks. their observation are still being confirmed by discoveries of science many years later."

From 'Extrasensory Perception of Quarks by Dr. Stephen M. Phillips published in 1980.

What about the work that Phillips published as a result of studying the revelations of the Theosophists?

That was a very interesting book. But it was too scholarly -- too much mathematics and physics in it for the general public. For scientists themselves, it shatters their whole premise and if they don't want to look at something, they won't. In fact they will do their best to put you down an! d starve you to death so that you are silent. But a couple of eminent British physicists supported the book and had him lecture at Cambridge.

Does the fact that quantum physics verifies the clairvoyant description mean that we must accept their further revelations of the spiritual worlds of fairies, angels, gnomes, devas and so on as a reality?

Absolutely. If a hundred years ago the Theosophists were absolutely correct in the number of quarks which they described, then one has perforce to look at their detailed descriptions of nature spirits. Obviously they are using effective clairvoyance. When you find that the shamans all throughout South America, for instance, describe the same phenomena as t he shamans in the Far East, rationally you must take it into consideration as being possibly real. Why would people accept the physicists' description of an atom, which the general public cannot see, and not accept the description of the nature spirits that they cannot see? They accept the religious notions of spirit, though they cannot see them, why not accept the possibility of nature spirits and angelic hierarchy?

Possibly for the same reason that the Christians made Pan into the devil?

That was a mistake. It's very interesting story. Apparently the Ancient Greeks first had the idea that Pan was dead, and there was some misinterpretation. The notion spread and made Pan, who is the god of the nature spirits in Greek mythology, into a cloven-hoofed devil -- the Christian heresy. That's what has caused us the greatest trouble, because we alienated the nature spirits. Poor Joan of Arc had to be very careful that she didn't admit that she had seen nature spirits, because that was cause for burning. She could talk to her angels, her saints -- that was admissible, but if she admitted to seeing nature spirits she could be burned as a witch. The whole Christian persecution witchcraft, and the whole world of nature spirits, is what has alienated us from a healthy plan! et. It's only when we get back in touch and accept their presence that the whole thing falls back into place and we take our place in the cosmos. otherwise we're totally alienated from healthy planet and from our role in the cosmos.

You say that the nature spirits seem to have orgasmic experiences carrying out their work. Do you think our natural state should be like this, especially in the light of Reich's work on bioelectric charge and discharge?

Bernard Shaw used to say that at a certain point one would have an intellectual though orgasm, as great as anything that the physical sexual union can provide. I've always puzzled about a strange planet in which everything eats everything else. If you go down the scale to the microscopic organisms, and all the way up to animals and humans, everything is eating something else and that seems a strange way to concoct a planet. Unless we're misconstruing it all. I got this from an Englishman who was hunting lion in Kenya; he missed, and was being mauled by the lion when he suddenly realized - he must have popped out of his boy - that it was an ecstatic rather than a terrifying experience. Somebody shot the lion and he lived to tell the story. But it's perfectly possible. I remember when I wrote THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS, I said on TV that a peach, raspberry or plum develops that extraordinary flavour solely to be eaten, and that possibly in the course of being eaten one may have an orgasmic death, as they say men do when hanged or drowned. I posit this strange idea that maybe the planet isn't so ghastly, and that when something eats something else it's an orgasmic experience for the eatee, who than becomes part of the eater. So evolution progresses, everything serves a propose.

In a way everything self-sacrifices itself. Steiner's notion is that the planet, if not the cosmos, functions on love and self-sacrifice. Love is what it's all about. The whole point is that arriving at the notion that love is not some soppy thi! ng but the essence of how the cosmos functions, is a revelation.

You quote Steiner as saying: 'Spiritual beings must love, but only humans beings can choose to'.

That's right, because fundamentally I subscribe to Steiner's notion that freedom is what it's all about for us, self-determined freedom. If the angels have to love, there's not much choice in it is there? But if we come to the conclusion that that's where it's at, that a big step forward because it makes for a cosmos of self-determined, loving creatures, not slaves.

If the devas are as powerful as the clairvoyants suggest, why do environment problems persist? Do you think that communication with, for instance, the air spirits could repair the damage man has done to the ozone layer?

I think it's the only thing that can repair it. Theoretically we're here to develop ourselves to the point of being creators, creating w

This book is a tour de force work on nature spirits (fairies, gnomes, angels, etc.). Peter Tompkins uncovers the history, past mystical organizations (as well as current ones), mystics, scientists and others and then factually pieces together the existence of this hidden worldaround us. This book is out of print (although you can purchase it through Amazon.com of the UK)as I suspect this book was deliberately taken off the market in the U.S. because of the controversial subject matter and discussion of halucigenetic drugs (and growth of the Santo Daime community).

A bizarre, somewhat disjointed read not for the scientific faint-of-heart, but for those familiar with Tompkins' strange excursions and capable of suspending scientific disbelief, another intriguing, startling exposition; includes discussion of Theosophists, Rudolf Steiner, astral planes, occult chemistry, fairies, woodland spirits, and the like. Tompkins is one of those far-out writers who, inexplicably, I consistently get a kick out of reading (and constantly wonder if he himself believes everything he writes about?). Personally I give this wild, rambling read a very high "4" for enjoyability, but it is the sort of volume other folks will either love (if they are inclined toward the metaphysical and esoteric) or...hate.

Having read The Secret Life of Plants, and enjoyed it immensely, I was a little disappointed with this book. However, persistence does pay off and towards the end of the book I was hooked. In my opinion, this was due to the complexity and obscurity of the subject matter, and not with any problem of writing style etc...

The subject matter is both interesting and educational. I approached it following the release in Britain of the film "Fairytale - A True story." Tompkins covers this specific extremely well and goes on to look at it in a wider context. There is a clear sense in the book that there are points when he is making discoveries about himself as he goes deeper into subjects. In particular he gives the impression that he experiences things rather than merely putting forward abstract theories.

At one point he states that there were things which the publishers of "plants" excluded twenty years ago but which he goes into now.

An excellent thought provoking book which challenges the way in which much of what we take as accepted in day to day life is offered.

This is a most excellent book, covering material not generally available to the spiritually curious. I have been completeing a Doctors Thesis with The University of Metaphysics and find this to be one of the books I used most extensively in the thesis. Interestingly enough this gives a more complete story of the movie FAIRY TALE A TRUE STORY. A movie which portrays Sir Arthur Conan Doyles discovery and publishing of the famous Cottingsley fairy pictures As a spiritual hypnotherapist (C.M.Ht//Certified Master Hypnotherapist) I am able to validate some of this material from my research sessions. I wish you would make a better effort to supply this book, which is on my list of 10 most recommended books to students and clients.

What a disappointment. The review sure sounded great? There might be some good information in the book for someone with the patience to wade through it. Between the arcane vocabulary and the way the author takes forever to get to the point, the book falls flat. The only good thing about the book is the subject matter. If a good book on the subject can just be found?

This book is written on second hand, unreliable info, just the kind of "I heard that...".
Peter Tompkins is the kind of writer who likes to compile things from other sources. But this time the content is poor, low quality, just sounds as fake as possible, he could really have done better.
If you are interested in Fairies, no doubt you will be able to find better reading elsewhere.