Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00343)

Eldon:
Yeehaa! Well this is one of the more bizarre things I've seen
written in a little while ... I'm by now used to having most things I
write quite rewritten split into little pieces and reassembled as
they enter your world - and usually I barely even recognize what comes
back out as something even relating to anything I've said. You
certainly have the "right" to evaluate anything I say but much of the
time you don't simply seem to be responding to my posts and others'
as well so much as restating what was written scrunching it into
some model so it fits into your worldview and then commenting on
*that* ... or in fact not even commenting on it but simply using it to
make some almost totally unrelated point.
Yet again in this response you see fit to not only critique my
ideas but to question the way I choose to state things. Good enough.
I will respond in kind.

>> those who actually channel to those who claim the virtually all
>> channelling is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all
>> costs

>One of your opening statements seems somewhat biased in painting a
>spectrum of possibilities saying it goes from those who actually do
>it to those that don't and say never do it. Your spectrum puts all
>recognition of danger on the side of the deniers. We can
>depict things many ways depending upon the analogies that we give in
>explanation.
This is projection pure and simple. You may hear things in a
biased way if *you* have a bias but the statement and its form is
simply a statement of fact. On one side of the discussion *are* people
like Bee who channel. On the opposite side are those like Patrick
who actually *said* that channelling should be absolutely avoided. I
personally *don't have an opinion* ... that is I *don't* do it and
would never try but I also don't think myself to be some guru capable
of telling someone whose *has* chosen to do it that they are a priori
*wrong*. Rather I have been seeking to understand it to understand
the experience of those who do it without the prior presumption that
they are in danger or deluded - or the presumption that they *should*
do it and are all getting high spiritual insight.
*You* are the one preaching a very specific path that makes a
lot a assumptions and of course claims that absolutely no experience
or even study and open-minded questioning of the experience of others
is necessary to render a judgement. You can certainly do this if you
wish but it will also mean that anyone that wants to look at the
phenomena without those assumptions will seem biased. Just as to a
couple of channels to which I showed the piece it seemed biased in the
*opposite* direction you are claiming.
What should I have said? "The spectrum goes from those stupid
enough to channel and those who are intelligent enough to be aware of
the risks?"

>> I remember watching this utterly bizarre wave of righteous
>> patriotism spreading across the country very deliberately and
.> even quite openly fed by the US Government ... I noticed that
>> ... not only the ideas but actually entire sentences that were
>> taken almost *verbatim* from a General's speech the previous day.

>This can be observed with any movement of thought that catches the
>public attention. People take up the ideas and are changed. Ideas
>full of nonsense come to us from the political left as well as
>right. We see a change in public thought as "utterly bizarre" or as
>a dramatic step forward in the betterment of the world depending upon
>our political biases.
Yes and we also read what other people write as being political
or not political depending upon whether we are looking at what they
are actually saying or simply looking at the reactions within
ourselves to what the person has said. This paragraph had *nothing* to
do with politics. It was an example from a personal experience - and
the Gulf war was chosen as the example as the post said because I
happened to be reading Gurdjieff at the moment I overheard the
conversation. Somehow this enters your world as a political statement
or something and I have no idea how you got onto the "liberal vs.
conservative" notion that seems to run throughout this post. I am
*not* "liberal" or "conservative" by the way -
However do tell me do you actually consider that the Gulf War
and the deliberate manipulation of the collective consciousness
throughout it was a dramatic step forward for the betterment of the
world?

>> To hold as Patrick does that channelling "kama-manasic"
>> entities is wrong and dangerous ignores the fact that the vast
>> majority of current human casual conversations are composed of
>> nothing other than "kama-manasic" impulses being "channelled" by
>> those talking

>There is a big distinction between sharing thoughts and feelings
>which we all agree is ok and the equivalent of someone blacking
>out losing control of his body having no memory of what
>happened and basically standing aside in the astral as another
>entity does what it will through the body. That giving up of
>control of the body is *not* good.
Its simply not black and white. Which is the point I was trying
to make. Point was in the "sharing of thoughts and feelings" very few
people are *totally* conscious and in control all the time ... and in
cases like mass movements may be just as close to "unconsciousness"
as a channel. And most channels don't totally lose control their
bodies have absolutely no memory of what happened and etc. Most
casual conversations as well as most channelling takes place in the
enormous grey area between those extremes.

>> 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.

>Yes. When we study Theosophy we have to take care to use the
>terms in the theosophical context and not assume that they mean the
>same thing as in popular usage. But that does not mean that the
>*ideas* are outmoded just that care must be taken with the
>terminology.
It also does not mean the ideas are *not* outmoded and should
not be opened to question.

>> Channelling today IMO varies in at least three different
>> important ways:
>> there is a far greater degree of sophistication about the inner
>> worlds than there was a century ago. ... [people are not] open
>> to any damn thing that wanders by ... [and consider] issues of
>> protection of keeping free of "lower" entities of attract.

>I would question the greater degree of sophistication. Certainly
>there are always a few more knowledgeable that the rest but most
>people I suspect are ready to believe whatever comes to them.
Read the literature of the late 19th century and then do a
survey of the popular channelling literature written recently. There
is an *enormous* difference.

>> There is a far greater understanding ...[that] one's own
>> attitudes and intentions creates a specific inner orientation
>> that will determine the nature and level of beings attracted.

>You seem to feel that people are much more capable
>in dealing with non-physical entities now than in HPB's day and so
>channelling would be safer for them. Yet on the other hand you have
>observed how quickly people can be overtaken by undesirable political
>propaganda. If people are so readily influenced by the tides of
>public opinion are they really more balanced and perceptive than in
>Blavatsky's time?
Not only is this not a contradiction it serves to prove the
point. I do know a number of channels and those who are serious about
it are actually those *most* attuned to and least affected by mass
movements ... precisely *because* much of the new literature
encourages specific control of what enters one's system - and this
becomes so automatic that the same discipline leads to a channel
almost automatically exerting controls and filters and discrimination
when an entity becomes present is also invoked by the presence of fad-
currents and mass manipulations. The good ones are some of the most
independent minded humans I know - and don't simply swallow *any*
idea from no matter *what* source without rigorous questioning.

>> In modern channelling literature ... people being encouraged
>> to be extremely specific about the nature of what they are open
>> to.

>I would hope so but wonder why they need to be open to other
>non-physical entities at all?
For *service*. And because some people just don't have a "pro-
incarnate" bias. Just because something doesn't presently have *flesh*
to mope around in doesn't mean there's absolutely no value in it. You
would say why would they need it - they would say why do *you* need
books and teachers and people to share interaction with? And why would
the possession of flesh be a requirement? You may think because of
some particular worldview that absolutely nothing of value comes from
discarnate entities or that you are nervous about your abilities to
discriminate among discarnates and therefore don't consider
interaction worth the risk ... but many operate with a considerably
different view of the inner worlds.

>> 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

>The need for channelling is based upon the model of how the world
>works. It is not I'd say necessary to talk to non-physical
>beings in order to come into direct contact with vast storehouses of
>knowledge and wisdom.
This is bias. I never said it was "necessary". But why is the
standard of "necessary" being used? Its also not "necessary" to read
books to come into contact with storehouses of inner wisdom. So why do
you read them?

>The search for truth does not need to be
>personified into invisible entities that come to tell us things. And
>higher beings with business on our physical world can and will have
>bodies of their own in due time. They are the Dhyani-Chohans and
>can currently be found on Globe C.
Always charming to see my sentiments neatly bundled into
Theosophical categories.

>Our expectations will bias our perception of the world and
>especially so in the case of psychical perceptions. But there is no
>need to *entify* thoughtforms and elementals as they come to us and
>build pictures in our mind of them as being great beings. We can be
>open to truth coming to us without having to calling one rich vein
>of manasic content as Mr. Angel a second as Plato and a third as
>Zargon from the Neptune Chain.
No need *unless* for instance you want to *talk in the English
language to other people* about things. I personally do not "entify*
what I call angels or angelic currents when I understand what happened
within myself - in fact I translate such experience into the language
of mathematics mostly because it makes it possible to understand
things in spaces with considerably more than three spacial
dimensions and in fact in the actual experience of understanding do
not even entify *myself* - but if I want to *talk* to someone about
it I have to say "angel" or "angelic current". Our language is based
on very limiting assumptions that almost forces "entification" to
*speak* about inner things to others but that does *not* necessarily
imply that the *experience itself* is of an "entity".
And this argument is getting old. Myself and several others have
put ourselves out there in trying to *express* inner experience ...
and are forced to use words to do so and then get judged and
"evaluated" by you & a few others ... who then speak in high words
about this "inner wisdom" accessible by following some specific path
that seems to look down upon the experiences expressed as being
"unnecessary" - but through all of those posts I have yet to see you
take the same risk ... have yet to see you attempt to *voice* even the
tiniest piece of that transcendent wisdom. Why doncha try it? You have
been implying all along that you have access to some "higher wisdom".
well precisely *what the hell IS it*? This path you talk about ...
upon which you walk and on the basis of which you judge the
experience of others to be *unnecessary* - well let's see it in the
open light of day; put bluntly:
Do you claim access to or possession of a wisdom or knowledge
or range of experience that is *higher* than what I speak of with the
angels than others speak of with their inner contacts? You seem to
continually imply this and I'd really like to hear you either claim
it outright or say that you are simply theorizing based on what
you've read. If you are just theorizing then the apparent freedom you
feel to judge and almost dismiss the experience of others as
"unnecessary" is the height of arrogance. If however you are
grounding your position in some *experience* of your own then for
once stop implying it and *state* it.
This sounds combative ... but it isn't - myself and others have
tried to express actual experience ... and it is a *hard* thing to do.
I *always* feel as though by the time it is put into words it has
required serious distortion and reduction - because expressing things
in language requires it ... it is a *risk* to do it especially when
the partial expression is then pounced on - massively misinterpreted
and then dismissed by someone saying there is something "higher".
Maybe you should *try* to actually *tell us* a piece of that
higher wisdom. Open *yourself* up to the tremendous pain and risk of
having your inner experiences - which you'll never feel as though
you've been able to completel6y express in english - interpreted
reinterpreted mashed - maybe even looked *down upon* and dismissed as
delusions of the lower mental or something. You might find that in
the process of putting your experience into *words* it winds up
looking nowhere near as "high" as you feel it to be - because words
*do that* - but this also might cause you to recognize how brutal some
of your comments are and how significantly you may be unintentionally
diminishing the experiences of others.
You have felt free to interpret and evaluate almost every single
inner experience that's been expressed on this list ... but I've just
realized that the mode is always the same ... you answer experience
with statements of Theosophical theory and the *implication* that
this is based on some sort of experience ... but I can't remember you
*ever* having tried to articulate what is being implied. With all due
respect I suspect if you try it even once ... put the most secret and
sensitive understandings within yourself on the table to be
"evaluated" by others you might well find your *responses* when
others do it achieving a greatly enhanced sensitivity.
Since you feel given to commenting on almost every inner
experience mentioned on the list and these comments always seem to
come as though from some guru on a mountain high above it all it
would be very helpful to know how to *evaluate* these comments. If the
evaluation is based on Theosophical writings then it is no more or
less important than anything written in any book. It will depend
purely upon how much of belief a person places in the Secret Doctrine
& etc. and in my own universe TS literature is not privileged or
supreme but very worthy contributions to a still enormous universe of
wonderful spiritual literature. If the comments are based on your own
personal interpretation of TS literature then they mean somewhat less
.. as to the already partial nature of what could be written in the
literature is added your own personal biases. If however you are
claiming that you can achieve states of consciousness superior to
those in the experiences being spoken of that your personality can
become transparent and non-biased that this inner wisdom that you
keep holding above the heads of anyone who articulates experiences is
something you have *achieved access to* ... then please once and for
all - *demonstrate it*. Open *your* most private inner sensations to
the same sort of "evaluations" you feel so free to superimpose on the
experiences of others.
This is not *personal*. What suddenly struck me as I was reading
this latest post is that since I have been on the list it seems as
though you are by far the most voluminous poster. There are others who
write a lot but some will write at length about some things little
about others and remain almost silent for weeks on end. You seem to
comment thoroughly on almost everything ... this is not negative I
am not complaining about the fact of it ... but it does mean that
your voice more than any other single person's has a large amount to
do with determining the general *environment* of the list. I also
noticed that virtually every inner experience expressed by someone be
it about "psychic" things inner abilities channelling or anything
else has not only been evaluated by you but has been evaluated
whether subtly or overtly as a *lesser* thing ... and usually been
placed next to not only a theory about a specific sort of path but
the implication that *you* have *direct knowledge* of its truth.
I'd very much like to see once and for all the *foundation*
upon which you stand when you claim in universal terms that "X is
higher Y is lower and Z is unnecessary".
I dare ya -: -JRC