Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00354)

John RC:

In your posting on channelling you outline a metaphysical model
to describe what you think is happening and predict that it may
form the basis of a future western religion.

My reply which you somehow found bizarre attempted to bring up a
number of points for discussion. In it I offered the more
traditional theosophical scheme put in my own words and with
perhaps a few ideas of my own as well.

I did not say that *you* are this way or that way nor challenge
you for credentials. Although I discussed why I would not go along
with that particular conceptualization I allowed for your form of
a future religion to exist alongside others that I might help
with.

Your presented your theory and speculations based upon what you
thing is going on. I replied in the same manner. I think that it's
possible for us to discuss our differing ideas or at least
present a side-by-side view of how they differ without having to
either a fall back and say that everything is subjective and
opinions or b making appeals to authority to "prove" our points.

You may want to make the ground rules for a discussion to require
that each of us either prove some sort of personal occult status
or 'admit to mere theorizing and the height of arrogance'. If you
want to do so yourself go ahead. I don't think that it is
necessary myself.

Apart from such proof either of us can fall back upon secondary
sources to give external validation to the ideas that we present.
I could quote HPB Purucker or perhaps Kalu Rimpoche. You could
quote your friendly channelers. These quotes would provide
'objective' evidence that what either of us writes about is not
simply made up by ourselves.

In your channelling paper you present a theory about what is
going on and describe where you thing it will lead in the future.
That theory is open to discussion. I don't think that a discussion
of the theory constitutes brutal comments about your personal
experiences.

Let me summarize some of the points that I made in discussion:

1. Your description for channelling as a future religion is not a
radically new thing in the world but is similar to other
previous approaches to religion.

2. The distinction between oracle-based and priest-based
religions.

3. Channelling is a different process than mediumship and is in
itself a neutral activity. It is like any form of perception of
other planes. Mediumship though is generally bad. The
difference is not quantitative or shades of grey but
qualitative or a different activity.

4. The distinction between a public religion that ministers to the
masses and a Mystery School or specific spiritual practice with
gurus and individual training.

5. A different model where oracles are not needed to contact higher
beings in order to tap Wisdom.

In your writing you do not seem to be describing personal
experiences except for perhaps the description of seeing the
beings of pure energy. If you think that I'm making fun of those
experiences then you're mistaken. But most of your writing is
weaving a theory which is fair game for discussion. Certainly an
analysis along traditional theosophical lines is not out of place
on theos-l even if not done with Blavatsky quotes.

The other area where you may have been upset is in my not
accepting your model for a future religion since you explain it
with the strong feelings of obvious religious devotion. But your
devotion and sincerity and compassion for others is not in doubt
when the potential dogma of that future religion is questioned by
any of us with other backgrounds.

I believe that I'm free to write about Theosophy or whatever I
find valuable as are you and the rest of us. The quantity of
writing that each of us does is based upon our free time and
interest in writing and may vary at times. Job school or family
may make demands upon our time that limits what we can do. I was
inactive on theos-l for instance from May through the end of
Jul because I was finishing an occult novel unpublished which
took up most of my time.

You feel that I and a few others are jumping on your sharing of
personal spiritual experiences that you are risking exposure of
your inner wisdom whereas we are not. I don't think that we are
doing that; we're just responding to your personal theories about
those experiences and about how the rest of the world works.

Perhaps if you clearly separate your descriptions of experiences
from your theory and speculations you won't feel this way since
the responses would only be to the theoretical postings.

I don't see myself as responding to your postings as a guru and
feel that I can show roots for most of what I think in established
theosophical and Buddhist thought. I think that spiritual
experiences must be judged on a case-by-case basis and each
individual judge what is appropriate to share. I'll also share
but when and how it seems right to me to do so and not simply to
give you an opportunity to show me how it feels to express an
experience and have it abused by others.

Any of us including myself can write about channelling to
analyze and attempt to understand it. If you want to make claims
for yourself and say that your analysis is more true because of
your special experiences we can take that into account. I or
others don't need to make special claims though to reply with
our own ideas especially when we mostly talk straight textbook
Theosophy. We are neither gifted oracles nor arrogant imposters.

You need to relax and lighten up and chuckle about things not
only when you're issuing stinging indictments of theosophical
groups but also when your theories are under attack. The views of
others only seem bizarre when you gaze upon a caricature of them
and are not trying to understand them.

I'm not taking the bait on your dare because I don't feel that I'm
holding back with anything that I want to share. For what I say I
consult my best judgement not yours and respond to an inner
sense of what is right. Are you doing the same? Are there any
experiences that you feel that you *should share* but are holding
back from sharing? If so the holding back is wrong and you
should speak up.

Respectfully

Eldon