Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00127)

[Part 02 of a two part post].

The final point is that the *meaning* of words like
"channelling" and "mediumship" has changed enormously since HPB
and the Masters were writing their comments of the subjects. HPB
it must be remembered lived during a time when something called
"sitting for development" was practiced when large numbers of
people were experimenting with trying to contact the "souls of
the dearly departed" - i.e. were developing themselves by
deliberately becoming totally and *indiscriminately* passive and
then trying to come into contact with what perhaps without
realizing it were little more than the shells of the
personalities of loved ones.
Channelling today at least as practiced in some circles is
quite a bit different thing ... that is is *not* necessarily the
same phenomena the early TS writers were criticizing. While this
does not automatically mean it is ok it does mean that the
criticisms and warnings of a century ago cannot just be sort of
lifted out of those times and then plopped down in the late 20th
century and assumed to be totally valid. Channelling today IMO
varies in at least three different important ways:
1 Even in the host of "new age" books about the subject
there is a far greater degree of sophistication about the inner
worlds than there was a century ago. Not only do none of the
books encourage "sitting for development" - in the sense of just
trying to be indiscriminately open to any damn thing that wanders
by - but most of them explicitly and extensively discuss the
issues of protection of keeping free of "lower" entities of
being quite specific about the nature of what one wishes to
attract. Leading to ...
2 There is a far greater understanding of the role of to
use a general term for the concept *Intent* in functioning in
the inner worlds ... an understanding that one's own attitudes
and intentions creates a specific inner orientation that will
determine the nature and level of beings attracted. At the most
superficial level this is the "we create our own reality"
ideology that when pushed too far and poorly understood makes
people believe they create the objective world. This ideology
however comes from a much deeper philosophical position that
probably began with Kant and most recently has expressed itself
as the branch of philosophy called phenomenology. This position
would not say that there is no objective world but rather that
the capacities for understanding in the individual human are
relatively so minuscule in relation to the totality of the world
that substantial numbers of psychological and in some schools
even neurological biochemical filtering mechanisms exist for the
express purpose of both creating an underlying conceptual
paradigm within which to understand what is perceived we all
hold a meta-picture of the "world" in our heads and to then
permit only that small number of elements out of the immensity of
the actual world that will fit within that picture to be
perceived.
To fool around with "Intent" is to in effect *use* these
principles to deliberately and consciously alter those filters so
as to open specific avenues of awareness and close others. This
principle can apply to outer world experience i.e. a person
after a series of bad relationships may begin to notice that all
of them seemed to unfold according to a particular pattern and
even further be with a distinct type of person - leading them to
understand they need to alter an interior set of patterns and
relationship assumptions which if accomplished will manifest as
the possibility for a whole different sort of relationship with
a completely different type of person a type that in their
previous state because of perceptual filtering they simply
never would have even *noticed* let alone been attracted to.
In modern channelling literature this principle is coming
to be increasingly understood and applied to the inner worlds as
well - with people being encouraged to be extremely specific
about the nature of what they are open to.
That is that there is a significant difference between a
channel that perhaps for instance because of a deep
insecurity unconsciously *intends* to hear a particular message
which in the inner realm means that the only doorway open is the
one through which an entity willing to deliver that message will
be able to enter and a relatively more refined channel whose
whole system is charged with the unconditional desire for truth
and oriented to only be open to beings of stature. This sort of
differentiation was not made in HPB's time because that second
sort of channelling was virtually *nonexistent*.
This principle also means that those who hold negative
conceptions of channelling and who find themselves focussing
heavily on "danger" on fear filled with suspicion about *any*
voice from the inner worlds should certainly *not* channel
because that paradigm *itself* will become the filter that will
effectively block those impulses that are *not* harmful and
delusional.
3 The final point I'd like to make is that *IMO* the
*baseline* human psyche of today is very different than it was a
century ago - it is far more fluid far less fixed into a small
set of patterns and perhaps *capable* in some cases of
withstanding the high voltage of genuinely high spiritual
entities. [NOTE: I must say that some of this idea comes from
clairvoyant observations and is hence subjective and may be
evaluated as thoroughly unreliable by some.]
In observing the inner worlds there appears to me to be a
sort of physics a set of almost scientific mechanical principles
that governs interactions between beings in general and the
human persona and "higher" beings in the particular case of
channelling. Once past the denser regions of inner space in
which almost all energy has an overwhelming predilection to
pattern itself tightly into fixed form which is the realm in
which mortality exists because once it is entered it makes the
apparent phenomena of "death" inevitable - no *form* can be
permanent - anyway once past this region there is a much more
immense realm that I've never been able to see the limits of in
which does exist orders of existence including something like
"beings" but these beings are almost purely energy. They might
be said to have great "wisdom" but this wisdom has almost
nothing to do with what we call "knowledge" ... i.e. it is not a
series of conceptualizations not a "philosophy" both of which
might be considered as almost dead and static *aftereffects* of
the movements of the energy itself.
It may be that one reason for warnings about "channelling"
had to do with the inner physics of connection: For a human
personality structure to be touched even slightly by one of
these immense beings who *do* have great wisdom *are* highly
"spiritual" and *would* be valuable to hear channelled it would
have to be *extremely* flexible or the energy would simply blow
the psyche into bits. Probably the best analogy might be the
power grid of a particular region. A power plant generates
extremely high voltages but if it were ever hooked up directly
to a single house it would simply fry all the wiring and burn
the house down. It must be first stepped down through a series of
transformers. And every house has a set of fuses or circuit
breakers that make sure that any surge of power in excess of what
the house's wiring can handle will cut off the flow before it
fries the wiring.
It think for instance that most major religions are
generated first as a current from one of those immense beings
that the "esoteric" side of the religion is the set of
transformers - and is composed of "Masters" and "Initiates"
i.e. those whose development renders them capable of
withstanding the impact of the pure juice and whose role is to
"step it down" this function is I believe the core principle
represented in the "Hierophant" card of the Tarot to pattern it
into a set of discrete form-side concepts each containing but a
tiny piece of the original energy that will unfold itself to
"light and heat" the energy-systems of the individuals belonging
to the "exoteric" side of the religion - i.e. the individual
"houses".
Now as humanity as a whole evolves i.e. as the human
persona becomes more flexible it may be that the rigid
hierarchy of the power grid - required for *safety* - may be able
to become more relaxed. This is a view of what I believe *may*
be 21st century "channelling":
Suppose a growing minority of humans possess personality
structures refined and fluid enough to be able to be "re-wired"
to withstand higher voltages hence allowing the circuit breakers
to be bypassed. Imagine the possibility that instead of the model
of pure energetic impulses needing large hierarchal religious
structures with the somewhat immense *downside* and potential
for abuse such a system has inherent in it to render the
impulses safe for individual consumption that instead a far more
decentralized picture became possible in which every *community*
possessed a few individuals capable of responding to the energy
itself and adapting it with far greater specificity to those
living in that place and time. While these people might not be
able to touch the pure unfiltered current they might at least
be able to more directly contact it after only its first or
second transformation and remember every *level* in a church
hierarchy represents another level of "transformers" ...
And to push this analogy to its final form ... the reason
why almost everyone who has power or standing in a current
religious or spiritual organization will speak out sharply
against channelling is the same reason that modern power
companies are doing everything they can to suppress research into
"alternative" power including metaphorically enough *buying*
for the sake of *burying* every alternative energy patent they
can get their hands on: It will mean the foundations of their
power will be cut out from beneath them.
We may be now seeing the first admittedly stumbling steps
towards this very different picture of spiritual and religious
activity. The basic underlying pattern is of certain individuals
beginning to try to channel "spiritual entities" i.e. to
connect directly instead of through the process of entering a
religious hierarchy - that is to go "off the grid" and seek
power directly from sun & wind & etc. and of people in
communities beginning to go to those channels to take advantage
of that direct connection instead of for instance going to a
Catholic priest who will simply adapt principles determined in
Rome to specific situations. And while the first steps *are*
difficult and may contain many mistakes the underlying pattern
itself may ultimately become not only a new "religion" but an
entirely different concept of what religion itself *is*. And even
further the evaluation of the "danger and delusion" cannot be
done in a vacuum ... but must be done in comparison to
*hierarchal religion* ... Might some channels cause trouble by
being unclear being deluded becoming authoritarian and
controlling and thinking they should be put on a pedestal?
Certainly but they are causing only the tiniest *fraction* of
the trouble caused for the identical reasons by modern
mainstream *priesthoods*. Its just I believe that we've become
so accustomed to such abuses have just simply accepted that
abuses of hierarchal standing are a necessary evil that must be
borne to derive the positive aspects from religion. But to really
evaluate channelling we must throw this assumption out. For
every modern channel that mistakenly advises a woman to leave a
relationship there are a hundred Baptist preachers threatening
women with eternal damnation if they dare leave the husbands that
have beat them from the first day of their marriages.
I do not channel and would never advise anyone to do it or
not to do it but I do tip my hat to those who have chosen
perhaps without knowing it to be what I believe a century from
now may be seen as the first pioneers to explore a new and wild
land ... a land that might contain benefits currently not even
dreamed of.
-JRC