Re: Comparing Clairvoyants
Sep 02, 1995 02:43 AM
by Eldon B. Tucker
>As I previously stated, I just renewed membership in the
>Association for Research and Enlightenment, which I first
>joined before the TS. The wrangling about the clairvoyance of
>Leadbeater and Purucker (and Bailey's clairaudience) in this group
>inspired me to reflect why I feel more comfortable with the Cayce
>material than any of those more explicitly Theosophical
There's no claim for clairvoyance with Purucker. He's either considered
a theosophical scholar or another spokesperson for the Masters. Either
is teaching from study and training, not speaking from visions.
>First, there is the simple fact of honest, open investigation--
>research-- rather than promotion of authority. A.R.E. is quite
>up front about admitting Cayce's many and big errors, and would
>never engage in the kind of deceptive editing JHE has decried.
>Neither the Bailey people nor any Theosophical admirers of
>alleged clairvoyants seem to have the same commitment to
>objectivity and evidence.
With ARE we have a simpler framework for study. We're digging through
massive files of information on a seer's materials. This is different
that studing Mystery Teachings, or trying to find where they are so
that we can study them. It is different that our trying to take
self-responsibility for being our own source of insight into life.
>Second, there is the sheer volume of relevant evidence
>available. Cayce is by far the most convincing example of
>paranormal abilities that I can think of. Even a brief reading
>of works about him establishes this.
He's done quite well with helping people in day-to-day things. I'm
not sure he's done so well with metaphysics, Atlantis, the sinking
of California into the ocean, etc.
>Third, there is the fact of his unconsciousness. To me, this
>cuts the Gordian knot of mistrust that people like Bailey and
>HPB and CWL cannot cut. That is, if the seer is conscious of
>the material and its source, there is abundant opportunity for
>mixed motives to pollute the "revelation." Personal gain,
>fame, bias, etc. all must be considered. Whereas with Cayce,
>there was little or no conscious awareness of the material, and
>this far less cause to suspect personal bias or motive. Of
>course, the unconscious can bias and contaminate anything
>anyone does, but in the case of Cayce we are dealing directly
>with the unconscious. This raises the question of archetypal
>patterns vs. historical reality (e.g. is Atlantis/Lemuria
>really inside the collective unconscious?) rather more directly
>than the other teachers mentioned.
This is also the sign of mediumship. And of automatic writing.
The lack of self-conscious participation by the individual means
that *someone or something else* is doing the talking. But who
or what is it?
>The above is not offered in the spirit of "mine's better than
>yours" but rather to suggest that we can be receptive to the
>work of clairvoyants while remaining skeptical. For example,
>how would Cayce's life readings measure up against the Lives of
I don't think that the real Mahatmas would write a book like "The
Lives of Alcyone," because the literal, factual information about
previous lifetimes would mean little to people in the present,
and *became the past changes.* (I'm making something of an overstatement
here, perhaps for shock value, but I do want to make a point.) The
literal, physical details of the past *does not exist.* All that is
carried forward into the *now* is the effects upon us; it is the
living energy in our karmic bonds with the rest of life. And those
bonds and the energy that they contain can and do change. An event
in the past is real and lasting only so long as we carry its effects
in ourselves and others along with us. We carry a lot of karmic
baggage that at times should be reevaluated. There come times to
"lighten the load" and leave behind things that are no longer of
use to us or others.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application